On 05/04/2008, at 11:06 PM, Edward K. Chew wrote:

I was wondering what the prevailing wisdom is regarding pattern naming conventions for assembly languages. I'm working on a bundle for an obscure chip (the long-discontinued Motorola DSP96002 which we still use in a variety instruments on account of it being one of the few DSPs which supports extended precision floats). So far, I've got patterns like "assembly.opcode", "assembly.directive", and "assembly.directive.macro", but I'm not sure this is the way to go. Should these all be under "keyword", for example?

Hi Ted,

There is a page in the manual on this.

http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/language_grammars#naming_conventions

LD.

On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Edward K. Chew wrote:

On 5-Apr-08, at 9:08 AM, Luke Daley wrote:

...

Hi Ted,

There is a page in the manual on this.

http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/language_grammars#naming_conventions

LD.

Thanks, Luke. I have looked at that page, and the existing conventions seem to cater mostly to compiled or scripted languages. Assembly languages are certainly varied, but do tend to share some common elements that could use their own naming scheme.

I had the same experience when adding a language definition for SX uC assembler. And if you make up your own, downside is that you will also need to add syntax highlighting to all themes you use.

Since I am not intending of making mine public, I kind of went backwards: In the preferences I looked how the various scopes were highlighted, and picked based on that, adding ".assembler" to all. I still had to make up a few to get the highlighting balanced. I am sure the language police would object strongly, but it works fine for my purposes.

Gerd

I just joined this list and seem to be having trouble posting, but I'll give it another try.

I was wondering what the prevailing wisdom is regarding pattern naming conventions for assembly languages. I'm working on a bundle for an obscure chip (the long-discontinued Motorola DSP96002 which we still use in a variety instruments on account of it being one of the few DSPs which supports extended precision floats). So far, I've got patterns like "assembly.opcode", "assembly.directive", and "assembly.directive.macro", but I'm not sure this is the way to go. Should these all be under "keyword", for example?

While I am not an authorative person on the subject (I do get harassed by Infininight ever so often ;) ) here are some suggestions:

assembly.opcode => keyword.control.assembly (Jump, Call, Load, Store etc) perhaps ops such as add and multiply should be keyword.operator.assembly

assembly.directive.macro => support.function.macro.assembly

I would put registers under storage.type.register.assembly and labels under entity.name.function.assembly. For example,

label: add r1, r2

in the above label would be the entity scope, r1 and r2 the storage.

Joachim Mårtensson

On 5-Apr-08, at 10:24 AM, Gerd Knops wrote:

On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Edward K. Chew wrote:

...

On 5-Apr-08, at 9:08 AM, Luke Daley wrote:

...

Hi Ted,

There is a page in the manual on this.

http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/language_grammars#naming_conventions

LD.

Thanks, Luke. I have looked at that page, and the existing conventions seem to cater mostly to compiled or scripted languages. Assembly languages are certainly varied, but do tend to share some common elements that could use their own naming scheme.

I had the same experience when adding a language definition for SX uC assembler. And if you make up your own, downside is that you will also need to add syntax highlighting to all themes you use.

Since I am not intending of making mine public, I kind of went backwards: In the preferences I looked how the various scopes were highlighted, and picked based on that, adding ".assembler" to all. I still had to make up a few to get the highlighting balanced. I am sure the language police would object strongly, but it works fine for my purposes.

Okay, well it sounds like there is no real consensus on assembly. I guess I'll stick with what I've got, then, which currently looks like this:

meta.preprocessor.directive.assembly.Asm96002: assembler directives (e.g. dcb: define byte-level storage) meta.preprocessor.function.assembly.Asm96002: functions evaluated at assemble-time (e.g. @cvs: convert memory space) keyword.other.opcode.assembly.Asm96002: processor instructions (e.g. bclr: test and clear one bit) variable.language.register.assembly.Asm96002: internal registers and their sub-fields constant.numeric.assembly.Asm96002 string.quoted.single.assembly.Asm96002 comment.line.assembly.Asm96002

Here is an example of how it looks in the Mac Classic theme:

(Aside: I couldn't find any way to copy or save text with the formatting preserved and had to resort to a screen dump. I guess I'll have to add rtf export to my wish list, along with multi-window projects, split views, and print selection.)

I have yet to decide what (if anything) to do with user-defined symbols. Should I try to distinguish between equates (constants), functions, and storage variables? That could be difficult. Maybe I'll cop out and come up with something generic like "label" that covers everything.

-Ted

On 5-Apr-08, at 12:42 PM, Tony Crockford wrote:

On 5 Apr 2008, at 14:06, Edward K. Chew wrote:

...

I just joined this list and seem to be having trouble posting, but I'll give it another try.

FYI - Gmail helpfully hides messages that are send from you, until someone replies - it assumes that any message to a list that you send, you know about, so it doesn't show you it again, which often means you (we, all gmail users) think you're post never made it onto the list.

not the best UI IMHO, but there you go...

;)

Ah. To think they must have gone to some trouble to come up with a feature like that...

-Ted