[SVN] Revision 1189 (Latex)

[Brad Miller]

On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Allan Odgaard wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2005, at 16:20, Brad Miller wrote:
>
>
>>> So meta would probably have been a better scope name.
>>>
>> So  a large regular expression with some captures that handles a  
>> function defintion is all together called delcaration.function and  
>> the individual parts are named as appropriate.  for example
>>
>
> Yes!
>
>
>> def foo(bar)
>>
>> The whole line is scoped as declaration.function
>> def is keyword.other?
>>
>
> Maybe a little controversial, but I've made this storage.type,  
> mostly drawing from languages where functions are just another  
> type, and c++, where a class is a struct, and a struct is also just  
> another type. So keywords saying: the next thing is a ... are in my  
> eyes storage.type specifiers.
I'll go along with that.  The Python programmer in me is ashamed :-)


>> Given that I do think that for Latex meta might be a better scope  
>> name, since we would not style the whole thing.
>> I will make that change.
>>
>
> If so, we should change all declaration.* things to meta.*. Which  
> is fine by me.
>
OK.   BTW is there any chance you could make the TM service work with  
the language definition text widget to make editing the language  
definitions easier?  I imagine long term you are headed in a  
different direction, but short term that would be handy.

>
>> OK, of course TeX has flow control as well \ifx, \else, \fi,  
>> \input, of course these are rarely used in the main body of the  
>> text.  Most of the time they are used in the preamble or main  
>> driver file.  And, they are not properly Latex commands they are  
>> TeX commmands.  So, I propose we start a small TeX.plist file to  
>> begin collecting some of the useful preamble stuff and we can  
>> simply include the TeX stuff in the LaTeX file.  This would also  
>> help out any future effort for Context.
>>
>
> Sounds like a good idea. This would then also be more proper  
> for .cls files and such?!?
Yes, although that is some ugly code!  If there are some style file  
or class authors out there it would be very helpful.

>
>
>>> As for this, for text{bf|it|tt} we already have markup.* and for  
>>> section/chapter entity.name.section makes sense -- as for all  
>>> other commands, I guess they shouldn't actually be scoped as  
>>> anything specific, but instead be subject to the other rules of  
>>> text.latex (using recursion).
>>>
>> I'll go ahead and modify the section matching rule to have the  
>> section names be entity.section.name then.
>>
>
> I assume you ment entity.name.section :)

what you said.

Brad
> _______________________________________________
> textmate-dev mailing list
> textmate-dev at lists.macromates.com
> http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
>