From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: cc-mode fontification feels random Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 19:21:20 -0700 Message-ID: <179f38c0370.2816.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org> References: <73ff18bf-66dc-7d7a-a0db-8edc2cdceba8@gmx.at> <83o8cge4lg.fsf@gnu.org> <62e438b5-d27f-1d3c-69c6-11fe29a76d74@dancol.org> <83fsxsdxhu.fsf@gnu.org> <179f22a44d8.2816.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35678"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: AquaMail/1.29.2-1810 (build: 102900008) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 10 04:24:00 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lrAMS-00093s-7O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:24:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56196 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrAMR-0002zB-21 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 22:23:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40346) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrAK5-0001Zs-38 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 22:21:33 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1]:56904) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrAK2-0006jE-Ur; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 22:21:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=IF4Q7zwWwgts5NbpjdrQiEzgxlzthf6KD9USfw134VQ=; b=EEk8OZZAf9o/DkNrUstGIusi6r OD/H0O7GDGyAbwi3jt9VcL3HthP2CY+rmDqG8nATRS5fmzkX6ktfN4Z3sevwIV2jyqXpp8CPmFUE+ VBJD+wKTEqltG6Ij8SyWumO4KNm7YY70+5r5jjwKfHKVMxCCYpBzFQUyh37xK8IZ1Uhvcjp0wfM0U 1ELz6HPBsaLU7Vq4sRl7eekcleeDBk7KCe/mEr7ctrfl+DnyZZxAKcXtCZUs56Uv6uLQLB4fK7DYa BGTiR9MICqK0brV6ckVhMnU3CON006fIUv2uVcdezSZQX8MaKcq+1J0i7oTVzTXw9RYhGWGlcuf7o rEd54N9g==; Original-Received: from 210.sub-174-193-192.myvzw.com ([174.193.192.210]:3113 helo=[100.104.170.157]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lrAJw-0003K5-CQ; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 19:21:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:3d8::1; envelope-from=dancol@dancol.org; helo=dancol.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270624 Archived-At: On June 9, 2021 1:20:32 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, Daniel. > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 12:05:27 -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > >> On June 9, 2021 11:23:04 AM Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Hello, Eli. > >>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 21:25:49 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Colascione >>>>> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:11:21 -0700 >>>>> Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, acm@muc.de > >>>>> The whole point of fontification is to provide visual hints about >>>>> the semantic structure of source code. If cc-mode can't do that >>>>> reliably, my preference would be for it to not do it at all. >>>>> Fontification of a type-using expression shouldn't change if I move >>>>> the definition of that type from one file to another. > >>>> I think we agree. Except that for me, it should also not try if it >>>> cannot do it quickly enough, not only reliably enough. > >>> Quickly and reliably enough are desirable things, but in competition >>> with eachother. Reliably enough is a lot easier to measure, quickly >>> enough depends on the machine, the degree of optimisation, and above >>> all, the user's expectations. > >>>>> IMHO, we should rely on LSP to figure out what symbols are types, and if >>>>> a LSP isn't available, we shouldn't try to guess. > >>> "Shouldn't try to guess" means taking a great deal of >>> font-lock-type-faces out of CC Mode. I don't honestly think the end >>> result would be any better than what we have at the moment. > > > >> I think it would be better in fact. The whole point of fontification is to >> provide visual clues about the function of a word in a buffer. > > That's one of the points. Another point is to provide colour, thus > giving the eye some pattern to orient around. I think its most important > function is to point out comments, thus making things like > > if (foo) > bar (); /* comment about bar > else > baz (); /* comment about baz */ > > undangerous. For that case, fine distinctions about types are > irrelevant. > >> If I can't rely on font lock type face actually distinguishing types >> from non-types, what's the point? > > Because the information about types, though imperfect, is nevertheless > highly useful. > >> If fontification isn't reliable, it's not syntax highlighting, but >> instead a kewl rainbow effect. > > Now you seem to be saying that either font lock has to be 100% right, or > it's wholly useless. Is that a fair summary of your position? If so, do > you disable font lock mode for CC Mode and other modes which can't > guarantee perfect font locking? > >> ISTM we can only correctly do fontification of type references with the >> help of LSP. > > I don't think it would be sensible to try to do it otherwise. > >> Without LSP support, I'd rather we not try to get it right, sometimes >> get it wrong, and make font-lock-type-face unreliable. (We can >> correctly fontify declarations and definitions I think.) > > That's a rather negative way of putting things, which is a bit indefinite > and wishy-washy. You could instead try to specify which tokens should get > font-lock-type-face and which shouldn't, thus giving something concrete > to discuss. I think this will be difficult to do well, and may lead to > the result which I alluded to above. Sure. To be more precise: what I propose is not applying font-lock-type-face to symbols when we think that symbol is a type solely because it's been entered into cc-mode's table of dynamically discovered types for the current buffer. > > -- > Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).