GNU bug report logs - #23461
perl mode uses same color for comments and here documents

Previous Next

Full log

Message #22 received at 23461 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: haj <at> posteo.de (Harald Jörg)
Cc: 23461 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23461: perl-mode: Displaying HERE-docs as strings instead
 of comments [PATCH]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 11:34:12 -0500

> This looks like to be an improved variation of 2): HERE-docs remain
> marked as c-style comments, and `font-lock-syntactic-face-function` is
> used to display them as strings.
>
> A patch for this variation is attached.

Looks good, thanks.
See nitpicks below,


        Stefan


>              (if (save-excursion (nth 8 (syntax-ppss (match-beginning 0))))
> +                ;; '>>' occurred in a string, or in a comment.
>                  ;; Leave the property of the newline unchanged.

Is think this `>>` is a type for `<<`, or am I missing something?

> +              ;; Before changing the syntax to c-style comment, let's
> +              ;; check whether we are in an end-of-line comment, and
> +              ;; if so, cheat by shifting the comment markers one char
> +              ;; to the left.

I jump straight to reading the code before reading your email's text and
it took me a bit of time to understand what this was about.
I think part of the reason is the "we are in an end-of-line comment"
since this is actually not about the case where the "<<" (which is
where "we" are at this moment, in my mind) is inside a comment.
So, I think the comment would be better if it just gave a straight
example, like

                 ;; Beware of `foo <<'BAR' #baz` because
                 ;; the newline needs to close the comment
                 ;; and can't be used to start the here-doc.

Also rather than "shifting the comment markers one char to the left"
I'd just say that "we terminate the comment *just before* the newline".

> +              (when (nth 4 (save-excursion (syntax-ppss eol)))
> +                (when (equal (car (syntax-after (1- eol)))
> +                             (car (string-to-syntax "<")))

This is a pessimistic test, because it will misfire when you have

     foo <<'BAR' #baz#

I think we should compare (1- eol) with (nth 8 (syntax-ppss eol)) instead.

> +                  ;; yet another edge case: "#" is the last character
> +                  ;; in that line, so there's actually no comment.
> +                  (put-text-property (- eol 2) (1- eol)
> +                                     'syntax-table (string-to-syntax "<")))

Indeed, terminating the comment just before the newline is a problem if
"just before the newline" is the comment starter.  I see that in that
case, you mark the char before the # but that can also be a problem with
things like:

    foo <<'BAR' "baz"#

An alternative is to leave the comment alone and start the heredoc just
after the newline instead (that approach suffers from the fact that we
need to be careful we don't accidentally throw away that `syntax-table`
text property when the next line is edited.  We can do that using the
`syntax-multiline` text property).

>  (defun perl-font-lock-syntactic-face-function (state)
>    (cond
> +   ((and (eq 2 (nth 7 state)) ; c-style comment
> +         (cdr-safe (get-text-property (nth 8 state) 'syntax-table))) ; HERE doc
> +    'font-lock-string-face)

I think some people won't like the string-face property for it.
How 'bout we (require 'sh-script) and use the `sh-heredoc` face?


        Stefan

Previous Next

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