New highlighter based on tokens and untyped trees #5137
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dottybot
reviewed
Sep 21, 2018
5 tasks
allanrenucci
force-pushed
the
new_highlighter
branch
2 times, most recently
from
50f7e3c to
bfa6543
Compare
|
CLA is signed by all contributors:
The dotty bot is confused once again. @smarter this is ready for review |
allanrenucci
force-pushed
the
new_highlighter
branch
2 times, most recently
from
aac50fe to
5c8c42d
Compare
allanrenucci
force-pushed
the
new_highlighter
branch
from
5c8c42d to
d3a1c33
Compare
nicolasstucki
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2018
| case tree: MemberDef /* ValOrDefDef | ModuleDef | TypeDef */ => | ||
| for (annotation <- tree.rawMods.annotations) | ||
| highlightPosition(annotation.pos, AnnotationColor) | ||
| val color = if (tree.isInstanceOf[ValOrDefDef]) ValDefColor else TypeColor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use pattern match instead of isInstanceOf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe could just be another case in the outer pattern match and for (annotation <- ... could go in a helper method.
| @@ -284,7 +284,9 @@ class ReplDriver(settings: Array[String], | |||
| x.symbol | |||
| } | |||
| .foreach { sym => | |||
| out.println(SyntaxHighlighting("// defined " + sym.showUser)) | |||
| // FIXME syntax highlighting on comment is currently not working | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will need to open an issue for this
- Highlight is based on MemberDef with annotations present - move scanner highlighter before parser so that annotation @inline wholdn't be highlighted as keyword - annotations are highlighted when full member definition is available
If we ignore trees named <error> and <init>, it is not so fragile after all...
Prior to this commit, an annotation with one or more parameter lists
would have incorrect positions attached to each parameter list. For
example, the annotation
@foo("bar")
would have the erroneous position `<4..10>` attached to its `Apply` node
instead of the correct position `<4..11>`. This was caused by forget-
ting to take into account the closing parenthesis.
These tests currently fail because of a bug in the syntax highlighter.
Test for `1Lx` currently fails; tests for float literals pass.
The end position was correctly set but the start position was wrong: the start position of `fn(args)` should be the same as the start position of `fn` itself.
Tokens position is less fragile. Specially when code does not parse
allanrenucci
force-pushed
the
new_highlighter
branch
from
d3a1c33 to
feeb420
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.