bug#17222: 24.3; In f90-mode variables declared in continuation lines are not colored.

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org> writes:

> part at the end is a potential empty-string repetition that indicates an 
> ambiguity which we'd like to remove.
> What is the desired grammar here? Moving to rx for clarity, the above snippet 
> means
>
> (+ (* (not (in "\n!&")))
>   (? "&\n"))
>
> What about rewriting it as
>
> (: (* (not (in "\n!&")))
>   (* "&\n"
>      (* (not (in "\n!&")))))
>
> which should be equivalent but unambiguous?

Yes, I think that's correct.

> However there may be something more fundamentally wrong with the original 
> change, because it only seems to work for me after loading a file, not when 
> writing the code incrementally. More precisely, when I've typed
>
> program main
>  integer :: alpha, &&
>
> in a new buffer then everything looks correctly coloured, but if I add
>
>   beta
>
> to the next line then it isn't fontified at all. Saving and reloading the 
> buffer helps. Can you confirm?

Yes.  I had forgotten all about the rules for multiline font locking
(i.e., (elisp)Multiline Font Lock).  So I think my changes here were
basically misguided, and this should be implemented in a totally
different way.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no