GNU bug report logs - #17222
24.3; In f90-mode variables declared in continuation lines are not colored.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Luca Cartasegna <cartasegna.luca <at> gmail.com>, 17222 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17222: 24.3; In f90-mode variables declared in continuation lines are not colored. 
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 17:20:46 +0200

> I've now fixed this in Emacs 29: 

Thank you for doing this. Relint complained about this part:

-\\(.*::\\|[ \t]*(.*)\\)?\\([^&!\n]*\\)"
-      (1 font-lock-type-face t) (4 font-lock-variable-name-face t))
+\\(.*::\\|[ \t]*(.*)\\)?\\(\\(?:[^&!\n]*\\(?:&\n\\)?\\)+\\)"
+      (1 font-lock-type-face t) (4 font-lock-variable-name-face append))

More specifically, the

\\(?:[^&!\n]*\\(?:&\n\\)?\\)+

part at the end is a potential empty-string repetition that indicates an ambiguity which we'd like to remove.
What is the desired grammar here? Moving to rx for clarity, the above snippet means

(+ (* (not (in "\n!&")))
  (? "&\n"))

What about rewriting it as

(: (* (not (in "\n!&")))
  (* "&\n"
     (* (not (in "\n!&")))))

which should be equivalent but unambiguous?

However there may be something more fundamentally wrong with the original change, because it only seems to work for me after loading a file, not when writing the code incrementally. More precisely, when I've typed

program main
 integer :: alpha, &&

in a new buffer then everything looks correctly coloured, but if I add

  beta

to the next line then it isn't fontified at all. Saving and reloading the buffer helps. Can you confirm?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.