At 06:05 PM 12/18/00 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the usefulness of
> > > the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one syntax error in the
> > > script, because this will be the normal situation while editing source.
> > > Parsers are generally very bad at parsing erroneous code.
> >
> > You're forgetting something. Any such editor would have to be written
> > either in Perl, or in C with builtin Perl, in order to gain access to this
> > type of parser feedback. That or we'd have to communicate with perl
>
>When I made the suggestion to give the perl parser enough API to let
>an editor use it for syntax highlighting, I was thinking of an editor
>written in C with embedded perl. Such as emacs or vi.
Yup. The parser should have some mechanism to parse pieces of code, so the
editor can pass in small chunks for analysis.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
