On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 11:05:49AM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > Is it worth having both options for syntax highlighting for source-highlight > in case an example changes something for later examples? I do not know > anything about how source-highlight works, so it may not be a problem, > but imagine the hypothetical situation of a language where you could define > new operators or change the string quotation syntax.
If the mode can be user-defined, it could be possible to have source-highlight both in 'bulk' mode and in per @example mode. The default could be 'bulk' mode but per @example mode could also be implemented with source-hghlight. > I suppose another option for such changes would be for the document author > to provide another argument on the @example line to indicate which @example > blocks should be processed separately. This seems somehow complicated to me to have both modes for the same document. > Can work on this wait until after the next release? Sure. Maybe we could add a more explicit quotation warning in the manual, like @cartouche @quotation warning Source highlighting is experimental, feedback is welcomed. The HIGHLIGHT_SYNTAX arguments are likely to change in the next release. @end quotation @end cartouche I will also change the manual such that instead of 'anything else' source-highlight is documented to be turned on by source-highlight, I think that it is better in any case. -- Pat
