|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#15594: trunk r114639: * lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el (ruby-smie-grammar): Add rule for paren-free |
Date: | Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:02:38 +0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 |
On 15.10.2013 07:31, Stefan Monnier wrote:
How would that look? (unless (member (save-excursion (ruby-smie--forward-token) '("]" "}" "end" "+" "-" "?" ":" ...)))(looking-at "\\s)\\|\\s.") ?
I guess this is better, but it has both false negatives (unary operators like -, ~ and !) and false positives (all non-opener keywords).
Or should the check be more like "is the next token in `ruby-smie-grammar', and if yes, is its left priority more than ' @ 's right priority"?Calling ruby-smie--forward-token is a bit dangerous since that function might itself be called from ruby-smie--forward-token. It might work, but you'll have to think hard about why an inf-loop is not possible.
Hopefully because both `ruby-smie--forward-token' and `ruby-smie--backward-token' would only call `ruby-smie--forward-token', and only when (> pos (point)), IOW there has to be some whitespace skipping done between the recursive calls.
You've probably already found this, but on the off chance you haven't, here's its syntax in (incomplete, somewhat outdated, etc) BNF form: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/cse305/RubyBNF.pdfPlease add this URL in a comment somewhere near ruby-smie-grammar (for example).
Done.
Getting `foo' and `bar' aligned is just a matter of adding && to the set of infix operators (i.e. completing the table of infix operators). Getting `bar' to be indented one more than `foo' here but not in other cases of "foo && \n bar" would require more work.
Ok, let's go with the former for now.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |