Re: syntax highlighting in the doc, call for testers

[Thomas Morley]

Hi Federico,

2012/2/3 Federico Bruni <address@hidden>:
> Il 02/02/2012 22:22, Thomas Morley ha scritto:
>
>> 1. Am I right you resigned of every highlighting within scheme?
>
>
> Yes, almost.
> I know nothing about Scheme. The only highlighting within Scheme that I'd
> like to preserve are the strings "". I've just edited the scheme definition
> and it works.
>
> Is there any other highlghting within Scheme that I'm missing?
> Can you provide some example?

in your initial mail you wrote "I'm trying to follow Frescobaldi
highlighting as much as possible" and so you did! Congratulation! It's
nearly a perfect reproduction.

But (as remarked before) I don't like the highlighting style of
Frescobaldi. I prefer the style of jEdit, highlighting LilyPond and
scheme (well, it's not perfect but I like it). In case you don't know
the jEdit-style, I attached a screen-shot.

Some thoughts:
1. IIRC the tracker-issue is about highlighting stuff in the docs. So
maybe highlighting scheme isn't desirable.
2. Seems I'm the only user who answered, so my opinion isn't representative.

???? No one else out there, interested in this stuff ????

> source-highlight has already a scheme language and I might easily include
> it, but I don't think that it's desirable: you would get what you see in the
> attached file.

That looks not very nice and gives _very_ little advantage. So I think
you should not include it.

Regards,
 Harm

jEdit.png
Description: PNG image