[TxMt] C Syntax

[Allan Odgaard]

On 10/11/2005, at 23.29, Oscar Bonilla wrote:

> How would people feel about this diff in the C syntax bundle?
> It will work on functions of the form: [...]

While I appreciate your contribution, it does seem a little limited.

> [...] What would be the appropriate regexp for making it work in  
> both cases? What I'm trying to do is get the functions to show up  
> in the Symbols menu.

The problem with just matching “«something»  
«something» («something»)” is that the pattern arise in a lot of  
places (in C++ at least) where it is not a function, and in addition,  
it doesn't catch all functions, e.g. the function result could be a  
complex (templated) type like: struct { int; } my_fun (…). Although  
maybe it's less important with these made-up (legal) cases, as no-one  
would probably declare functions like that.

Given that function declarations can only occur at root level, or as  
direct child of struct, class, or namespace, I think the best  
solution would be to rewrite the C grammar to know about these  
contexts -- it's something I could probably give a shoot, though it's  
a lot of work, since it really needs to know about a lot of the C(++)  
syntax, like initializer lists for constructors (which also look like  
function declarations) and could in practive be fooled by (bad)  
preprocessor usage.

But it's worth a shot -- although I'd prefer to wait till I add  
ability to (re-)apply rules to captures, so that I can recognize the  
primitive types correctly in all contexts, w/o having to resort to  
humongous regexp patterns.

> The other thing that's broken with C is that #defines which are not  
> functions are incorrectly marked as functions. For instance:

Oh, I did that on purpose, although only for the coloring (not  
thinking of the symbol popup at the time).

> [...] I'll take a look at this later this week if no one has a  
> workaround...

The rule is other.preprocessor.c -- it'd have to be two rules, with  
the one matching defines w/o arguments using another scope name  
(probably just add with/without-arg to the scope name (we do this a  
few other places as well), for which the showInSymbolList can then  
just be set) -- I'll gladly accept a patch for this change.