GNU bug report logs - #67061
[PATCH] Improve syntax highlighting for python-ts-mode

Previous Next

Full log

Message #86 received at 67061 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Denis Zubarev <dvzubarev <at> yandex.ru>,
 "67061 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67061 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#67061: [PATCH] Improve syntax highlighting for python-ts-mode
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:54:16 -0800

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev> wrote:
> 
> On 13/12/2023 05:49, Yuan Fu wrote:
> 
>>> Python doesn't have special keywords for variable declarations (unlike 'let' in JavaScript or typed declaration in C), so the first time a variable is introduced serves as its declaration. For assignments, we can't easily determine which is the first time for a given scope, but examples like 'for var in ...' or 'except ZeroDivisionError as e:' or '[... for var in ...]' are all unambiguously variable definitions.
>> Sure, I don't really care too much about which feature should a rule be in; what I do care about is to keep first and second fontification level relatively quite and minimal, and keep level 3 reasonably conservative. And people that want a lot of highlight can turn on level 4.
> 
> I don't mind if assignments in python-ts-mode go to level 3, that's what ruby-ts-mode does anyway.

Assignment is in level 3 for python-ts-mode.

> But '[... for var in ...]' really should use variable-name-face and it should be in the default config (level 3 at most).

I’m fine with that.

> I think the 'definition' feature is good for it (going by the name, since it's an implicit variable declaration), but it could be split off into a separate feature too.

As long as it’s not added to the definition feature, because, again, definition is at level 1 and I don’t want to keep level 1 minimal.

Maybe we can use local-definition, or something similar, to signify that this feature highlights scoped definitions.

> 
>>> in c-ts-mode highlighting for 'int i = 4' is split between 'definition' and 'assignment' (the latter seemingly redundant); 
>> Should've been in assignment IMO. I probably overlooked it.
> 
> The current state is that the query in 'definition' can highlight both 'int i;' and 'int i = 4;'. The query in 'assignment' in c-ts-mode only highlights 'int i = 4;'.
> 
> If you just keep the latter query, 'int i;' would stay unfontified. If you move the corresponding query from 'definition' to 'assignment', it would start matching non-assignment declarations too. Might seem odd.

Right… hmm… This one is hard to decide...

> 
>>> typescript-ts-mode and rust-ts-mode also follow the principle, more or less.
>> Well, the only ts-mode that I actually wrote is python-ts-mode. For other major modes, I can only suggest. Even for python-ts-mode, I don't want to exert my personal opinion onto it too much, except for keeping font-lock level 1 and 2 quiet.
> 
> For my part, I mostly care about keeping the level 3 feature-rich enough, but precise at the same time. And without frivolous highlights (only a little more fruit-salady than the pre-treesit modes).

Sounds good to me :-)

>>>>> My thoughts about parameters. I started to extend rules for them since they are very limited now.
>>>>> But I'm not sure what face to use for them.
>>>>> I would like to not use the same face as for assignments, because I'd want to highlight them differently.
>>>>> It seems that there is no appropriate face in font-lock.el, so I ended up creating my own face in my config.
>>>>> Does it make sense to add new face for parameters in font-lock.el?
>>>>> Or it is too small feature for its own face?
>>>>> I also apply this face for keyword argument in function calls.
>>>> To be honest, I don't have any good ideas. Perhaps we can add a parameter face that inherits from variable name face by default, Dmitry, WDYT?
>>> 
>>> As per above, parameters don't seem too different from any other variable declarations from my POV. They are similarly useful, so I'd highlight them the same way.
>>> 
>>> Do we want to have a common face which would inherit from font-lock-variable-name-face and would be used solely for function/methods parameters and nothing else? I don't object, but I don't quite see the point either.
>> I agree.
> 
> Then I suppose we should clarify whether Denis wants a face that only matches function parameters, or implicit variable declarations as well. Or maybe instead a face that is only used for assignments (only first assignments?) -- which would separate them from the two semantic units above.

I’m ok with either. And I’ll leave it to you guys to decide, like I did other faces we added in Emacs 29 ;-)

Yuan

Previous Next

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