Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » U++ Library support » LineEdit, EditFields, DocEdit » What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable?
What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45606] Tue, 15 December 2015 12:07 Go to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Hi Mirek,

In my project I require a powerful code editor and I'm using CodeEditor. While it is a very powerful class, it is not that easy to add features to it without forking it. And this is what I've done.

But I am thinking about how to make it much more extensible.

Currently, there is an enum describing a bunch of hard-coded languages and a few tables with hard-coded positions.

I'm thinking of an approach where CodeEditor has no hard coded support for languages. Instead of a single value describing the whole language, we replace it with a structure having options and an old language option acts as a particular collection of new boolean options.

I'll give two examples on how this could work.

First, a statement like:
if(highlight == HIGHLIGHT_CSS ? *p == '#' : pair == MAKELONG('0', 'x') || pair == MAKELONG('0', 'X'))
		

would become:
if(highlight.UseCSSHex ? *p == '#' : pair == MAKELONG('0', 'x') || pair == MAKELONG('0', 'X')) 


We would register the CSS syntax with this option set to true and for other registered syntaxes to false.

Then in CSyntax I added support for #region tags, like in C#. Rather than checking if it is C# or other languages that support #region, one would check highlight.UseRegions. This option would be checked by EditorBar too in order to draw #region outlines, like for #ifdef. I implemented this using a new hardcoded language, but would like a more flexible solution.

One would register a structure with appropriate options set for a language, together with keywords and upp ids.

How does this approach sound? I already have a forked CodeEditor, so I can create an early minimal prototype if you wish.


Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45607 is a reply to message #45606] Tue, 15 December 2015 12:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13442
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Tue, 15 December 2015 12:07
Hi Mirek,
Currently, there is an enum describing a bunch of hard-coded languages and a few tables with hard-coded positions.


I am not quite sure this is the completely correct description.

Yes, styling elements (like color of comments) are currently hardcoded. However, CodeEditor is already open w.r.t. language syntax descriptions. You can register your own syntax, with text id, with EditorSyntax::Register. You can then activate this syntax using this text id with Highlight.

Mirek
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45609 is a reply to message #45607] Tue, 15 December 2015 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Things that I'm trying to fine tune by language:
- highlighting of #ifdefs
- highlighting of @region
- highlighting of nested comments
- highlighting of doxygen like comments
- highlighting things like literal constants a bit differently based on language
- highlighting ids based on other id rules
- highlight a few symbolic meta constants as non-keywords, but as literal constants, like true, for languages where true is not a keyword, but a literal constant and should be highlighted as an int.

And achieve this in a pretty general and fast way.

And generally speaking, the C like language highlighter is able to approximately, often very closely, syntax highlight a given language, but as it currently stands:
- it is not able to properly 100% highlight some inputs. The changes would be trivial to make it 100% but
- would not be compatible with C++.

That's why I proposed a structure with bool options, to make sure that highlighting is fast. What I'd need it to handle, as just one of the examples, is "0.Foo" to be highlighted as a literal int, member selection punctuation, id. And "7.0.Bar" as literal double, member selection punctuation, id. And "7.0f.Foo" as float and so on. For all those pure OOP languages.
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45611 is a reply to message #45609] Wed, 16 December 2015 14:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Oh, and one more thing. Is there an HTML export function for CodeEditor? Preferably with both inline and named CSS options. If there isn't, I need to add it.

The output of this export should be the exact text that is in the editor, but with all the font formatting options.
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45614 is a reply to message #45611] Wed, 16 December 2015 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
koldo is currently offline  koldo
Messages: 3268
Registered: August 2008
Senior Veteran
Quote:
but with all the font formatting options

In addition it could be good to add this when copying to Clipboard and when printing.


Best regards
IƱaki
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45618 is a reply to message #45611] Thu, 17 December 2015 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13442
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 16 December 2015 14:53
Oh, and one more thing. Is there an HTML export function for CodeEditor? Preferably with both inline and named CSS options. If there isn't, I need to add it.

The output of this export should be the exact text that is in the editor, but with all the font formatting options.


Not yet, but interesting idea.

IMO, it should be possible to achieve this just using regular CodeEditor/LineEdit interface.
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45619 is a reply to message #45609] Thu, 17 December 2015 13:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13442
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Tue, 15 December 2015 14:16
Things that I'm trying to fine tune by language:
- highlighting of #ifdefs
- highlighting of @region
- highlighting of nested comments
- highlighting of doxygen like comments
- highlighting things like literal constants a bit differently based on language
- highlighting ids based on other id rules
- highlight a few symbolic meta constants as non-keywords, but as literal constants, like true, for languages where true is not a keyword, but a literal constant and should be highlighted as an int.

And achieve this in a pretty general and fast way.

And generally speaking, the C like language highlighter is able to approximately, often very closely, syntax highlight a given language, but as it currently stands:
- it is not able to properly 100% highlight some inputs. The changes would be trivial to make it 100% but
- would not be compatible with C++.

That's why I proposed a structure with bool options, to make sure that highlighting is fast. What I'd need it to handle, as just one of the examples, is "0.Foo" to be highlighted as a literal int, member selection punctuation, id. And "7.0.Bar" as literal double, member selection punctuation, id. And "7.0f.Foo" as float and so on. For all those pure OOP languages.


OK, so just to make it clear, what you are proposing concerns CSyntax highlighter?

Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45620 is a reply to message #45619] Thu, 17 December 2015 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Yes. Sorry, I should have been more clear. It is about making CSyntax easier to extend for other C like languages. The general Registering system and the other syntax classes are probably fine as they are.

I managed I think to obtain #region #endregion support as a simple patch for the official CodeEditor. I shall post it soon.
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45623 is a reply to message #45620] Thu, 17 December 2015 16:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13442
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
OK, i have no problem with that, but perhaps it is as easy to just check current language, exactly as is happening now?
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45625 is a reply to message #45623] Thu, 17 December 2015 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
mirek wrote on Thu, 17 December 2015 17:15
OK, i have no problem with that, but perhaps it is as easy to just check current language, exactly as is happening now?


I'm doing a merge and testing stuff right now for the patch. And yes, we could probably leave things as they are in CSyntax. But some things are still a bit hard to do with a semi-hardcoded C-Like language list.

I need to add the #region and #endregion tags. So I have changed this code:
if(*p == '#' && findarg(highlight, HIGHLIGHT_JAVASCRIPT, HIGHLIGHT_CSS, HIGHLIGHT_JSON) < 0) {
			static Index<String> macro;
			ONCELOCK {
				static const char *pd[] = {
					"include", "define", "error", "if", "elif", "else", "endif",
					"ifdef", "ifndef", "line", "undef", "pragma",
					// CLR
					"using"
				};
				for(int i = 0; i < __countof(pd); i++)
					macro.Add(pd[i]);
			}


I could add them here and that's what I'll do for the patch, but I still think it would be more elegant to have highlight be some sort of structure with fields. findarg(highlight, HIGHLIGHT_JAVASCRIPT, HIGHLIGHT_CSS, HIGHLIGHT_JSON) < 0 could become highlight.HasPreproc. And the macro list would not have to be static, but instead tied to highlight, with each separate highlight having it's own list. This way #region and #using, which are C# mostly, would not show up in other modes.
Re: What do you think about this approach to making CodeEditor more user extendable? [message #45855 is a reply to message #45625] Wed, 13 January 2016 15:38 Go to previous message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Sorry, I didn't have time to touch this up until today.

I have attached a minimal version of #region #endregion support, done with the #if support.

And since you are not a big fan of my proposals for CSyntax, I think that it is best to continue and do what I'm doing right now (fork CSyntax) and maybe in a few months separate it into a new class, i.e CSyntax (unmodified from U++, handling all standard languages) and CMySyntax (handling only my cases). I'll delay this a few months since forking and merging occasionally is less work Smile. It is just syntax highlighting after all, hardly the most important of tasks.
  • Attachment: CSyntax.cpp
    (Size: 7.79KB, Downloaded 128 times)
  • Attachment: CHighlight.cpp
    (Size: 10.32KB, Downloaded 125 times)
Previous Topic: Lost focus in edit fields
Next Topic: How to do fast Append & scroll in LineEdit with MT?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Oct 22 21:51:08 CEST 2021

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01279 seconds