[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#15594: trunk r114639: * lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el (ruby-smie-gramm
bug#15594: trunk r114639: * lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el (ruby-smie-grammar): Add rule for paren-free
Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:02:38 +0400
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here's its syntax in (incomplete, somewhat outdated, etc) BNF form:
Please add this URL in a comment somewhere near ruby-smie-grammar (for
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.