[Qt-creator] [patch] C++ syntax highlighting and the (unused) 'style' format.

[paulo]

Hello,

I don't want to disturb your discussion, specially since I never red 
either code, but isn't it a fact that vim does its syntax highlight 
using post compilation loaded files.

Is there a justification to hardcoding anything at all?
Isn't vim performance actually better than the average with the extra 
fame and fortune of having one of the widest language support in the 
market? (AFAIK)

How does that approach compares with qtc?

Cheers,
Paulo

tbp wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM,  <roberto.raggi at nokia.com> wrote:
>> from a quick look at your patch it seems that you're highlighting cv-qualifiers, storage-class-specifiers and a subset of type-specifiers but i'm wondering why?
>>
>> why do you think it is a good idea to highlight "extern", "mutable", "register" and so on as types?
> Storage class specifiers auto, register and mutable only ever apply to
> "variables" and cv-qualifiers even when used on member functions
> merely qualify "this". Then i've picked those type specifiers that
> didn't require any semantic interpretation to disambiguate.
> Seemed somewhat consistent (also in line with what other lexer based
> syntax highlighters do, more or less).
> 
> Now i have to admit including "extern" and "static" was rather
> arbitrary (and ambiguous).
> 
>> Yep, we should use the Semantic Highlighter instead.
> As far as i can see it's only available in trunk and not yet enabled,
> but that's interesting.
> 
>> I won't be in the office this week but if you are interested we can continue this discussion on #qt-creator next week.
> Excellent.
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
>