[clangd-dev] Syntax highlighting of keywords
Ilya Biryukov via clangd-dev
clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Oct 28 01:12:05 PDT 2019
We're talking exclusively about semantic highlightings (e.g. the
highlightings that require full semantic analysis).
Clangd *could *potentially provide keyword highlightings as well, with
different latency trade-offs.
I still feel like getting it right in the editors shouldn't be too big of a
problem, although some things like raw string literals obviously pose a
Doing it in the editor provides a much more robust experience, e.g. imagine
losing *all *syntax highlighting because clangd crashed.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 2:39 AM Kirill Bobyrev <kbobyrev.lists at gmail.com>
> Just checking: are we talking about primitive highlighting (i.e. keywords
> only)? I had several problems with C++ keywords from new language standards
> because they are not in the default syntax files of (Neo)Vim and
> third-party plugins often miss some of the words. I think it makes sense to
> have Clangd as the “universal provider” of the updated keyword list because
> then I don’t have to patch Vim plugins and/or wait for the default syntax
> files to get updated.
> > On 25 Oct 2019, at 10:59, Ilya Biryukov via clangd-dev <
> clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hi clangd-dev,
> > I was wondering whether there's any value in the highlighting for
> "primitive" types being added on keywords like 'void', 'int', etc?
> > - Any editor handles those with default syntax highlight.
> > - It's trivial and does not require actual semantic knowledge.
> > With that in mind, I wonder whether we should drop this completely and
> just let the editors handle the keywords?
> > What do people think?
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Ilya Biryukov
> > _______________________________________________
> > clangd-dev mailing list
> > clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clangd-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clangd-dev