Emacs mode for revised syntax

Emacs mode for revised syntax

[SerP]

	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=3.2.3

X-Spam-Level: 

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on luckytravels.com

X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/533/Sat Oct 16 21:09:44 2004
	clamav-milter version 0.80j
	on luckytravels.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean

Hi, Caml-list

Sorry for my bad english.
I'am use emacs with tuareg mode, and wirte in ocaml original syntax.
Now i decide to write in revised syntax - but my emacs don't highlight 
revised syntax correctly.
I can't find any emacs mode for revised syntax, is this exist?
Thanks

Re: [Caml-list] Emacs mode for revised syntax

[Matthieu Dubuget]

2007/12/17, SerP <serp@stork.ru>:
> I can't find any emacs mode for revised syntax, is this exist?

This is not so far from a more general question about syntactic
extensions and IDE I have been having in mind for some time.

What does need an editor to be able to colorize files using syntax
extensions?

Some ideas:

- it would have to know wich syntax extension is used in each
  file. Until know, this knowledge is at building tools level? Would
  it be a good idea to move this information inside the files.

- there should be some extension of the colorisations rules, also?
  Depends on the IDE?

Well would it be possible (and enough) or something to much difficult
to add some more simple tools that would help any IDE?
Like -dtypes does, for example.
I mean simple tools that would make editors mode more simple to
write (especially emacs, since this is the one I tend to use ;-)

Thanks

Matt

Re: [Caml-list] Emacs mode for revised syntax

[David Teller]

I've started patching Tuareg for the revised syntax. It's not very clean
as I don't speak elisp natively, but it's starting to work. I'll try and
post that in the beginning of January.

Cheers,
 David


On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 19:48 +0300, SerP wrote:
> Sorry for my bad english.
> I'am use emacs with tuareg mode, and wirte in ocaml original syntax.
> Now i decide to write in revised syntax - but my emacs don't highlight 
> revised syntax correctly.
> I can't find any emacs mode for revised syntax, is this exist?
> Thanks

-- 
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations. 

Re: [Caml-list] Emacs mode for revised syntax

[Berke Durak]

David Teller a écrit :
> I've started patching Tuareg for the revised syntax. It's not very clean
> as I don't speak elisp natively, but it's starting to work. I'll try and
> post that in the beginning of January.

Hello,

Just an idea:

If you're using ocamlbuild, you'll usually tag preprocessed or revised 
files with something such as camlp4o or camlp4r.  You can display this
information with

   ocamlbuild -show-tags file.ml

Hence, Emacs (or whatever) could call ocamlbuild to see if the file is 
ought to be in revised syntax or not.

-- 
Berke DURAK

Re: [Caml-list] Emacs mode for revised syntax

[Nicolas Pouillard]

Excerpts from Berke Durak's message of Tue Dec 18 17:22:36 +0100 2007:
> David Teller a écrit :
> > I've started patching Tuareg for the revised syntax. It's not very clean
> > as I don't speak elisp natively, but it's starting to work. I'll try and
> > post that in the beginning of January.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Just an idea:
> 
> If you're using ocamlbuild, you'll usually tag preprocessed or revised 
> files with something such as camlp4o or camlp4r.  You can display this
> information with
> 
>    ocamlbuild -show-tags file.ml
> 
> Hence, Emacs (or whatever) could call ocamlbuild to see if the file is 
> ought to be in revised syntax or not.
> 

Hum, that's a neat idea!
-- 
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai

Re: [Caml-list] Emacs mode for revised syntax

[Jan Rehders]

On 18.12.2007, at 15:53, Matthieu Dubuget wrote:

> I do not know if it is at will, but you only replied to myself,
> not to caml-list.

Oh, thank you for the notification. Here's my reply, again:

> - it would have to know wich syntax extension is used in each
> file. Until know, this knowledge is at building tools level? Would
> it be a good idea to move this information inside the files.

This also has the potential to simplify build files. This would be a  
Good Thing(tm). On the other hand it could cause troubles if one would  
want to use different extensions for different build configurations  
(the conditional compilation extension might make this desirable).  
This could probably be resolved by making the specified extension the  
default one and allowing one to override it on the command line.

> Well would it be possible (and enough) or something to much difficult
> to add some more simple tools that would help any IDE?
> Like -dtypes does, for example.
> I mean simple tools that would make editors mode more simple to
> write (especially emacs, since this is the one I tend to use ;-)

A tool which emits something like an annotated AST containing  
information like unique ids for names, their AST types etc. would be  
very useful. It could be used for syntax highlighting as well as more  
intricate tasks like refactoring tools. This might prove to be very  
useful for IDE builders. I also made good experiences letting emacs  
query an interactive toplevel for completions etc (for a custom  
language). Steal.. erm getting inspiration from the lisp community