GNU bug report logs -
#61655
[Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately
Previous Next
Full log
Message #26 received at 61655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 21/02/2023 17:31, Jacob Faibussowitsch wrote:
> but maybe a better default is to leave these faces totally blank and
> just purely `:inherit` from `font-lock-function-name-face`
I believe so.
> +(defface font-lock-function-call-face
> + '((t :inherit font-lock-function-name-face :foreground "royalblue1"))
> + "Font Lock mode face used to highlight function calls."
> + :group 'font-lock-faces)
This one I was thinking of as well.
> +(defface font-lock-member-function-call-face
> + '((t :inherit font-lock-function-name-face :foreground "brightred"))
> + "Font Lock mode face used to highlight member function calls."
> + :group 'font-lock-faces)
What's a "member function"? Is it like a method? If people want this
distinction, we can add such face. But I'm curious whether some other
editors use different colors for these cases.
I'm also wondering what face we're supposed to use for "receiver-less"
method calls, such as calls to the methods defined in the same class, in
e.g. Ruby and Java. Or C++/C#. They don't use 'this'.
I think more importantly, we need a new face for variables.
font-lock-variable-ref-face ?
I also wonder whether we'll need to separate faces for properties:
definitions vs. uses. That one we could use to do early, to keep the
names uniform, e.g. we'd have:
font-lock-function-name-face
font-lock-function-call-face
font-lock-variable-name-face
font-lock-variable-ref-face
font-lock-property-name-face
font-lock-property-ref-face
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 88 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.