[SVN] Improving the Ruby Syntax

[Chris Thomas]

I say go for it. It's always better to classify things specifically 
where possible. Whether or not the default style sheet colors all of 
the keyword elements the same is a different question, and it probably 
doesn't matter, because the stylesheets will allow full per-user 
customization.

And the Rails stuff in particular definitely needs to be in a separate 
Rails syntax.

Chris

On Mar 7, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Torsten Becker wrote:

> Hi,
> recently there was some activity on the Ruby Syntax Definition.  I am
> using a custom Ruby syntax since my first days using TM. (because the
> colors where to heavy for me, it had some errors, it highlights Rails
> stuff, I don't need and I wanted some extras)
>
> So because there is some improving work now, I just wanted to ask if
> anybody would complain if I merge this things from my own Syntax in
> the default one to be able to switch to this one in the future:
>
> * Separating the keywords in 'general keywords' (def, class, etc),
> 'special values' (true, nil, etc) and 'special methods' (initialize,
> attr, raise, etc).  I personally like this separation to see the
> difference between true, def and raise, they are all keywords but they
> are different IMO.
>
> * Introducing patterns for globals ($*), instance- (@*) and
> class-variables (@@*).  with the new CSS-like approach one isn't
> forced to highlight them but I, again, like to see them a bit
> emphasised (it also should solve the bug, that $1 looks incorrect in
> ATM)
>
> Maybe later:
> * Putting the Rails stuff in a Rails specific Syntax (call it 'Rails'
> or so) which includes Ruby.