Re: cperl-mode and fontlock

Re: cperl-mode and fontlock

[Harry Putnam]

  [ALERT - I've attempted cross posting this to devel as 
  well -ED reader@newsguy.com]

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> writes:

> On 2009-09-17, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> As I enter code... syn-hilite appears to be working just as expected
>> but as time wears on and some of the code scrolls off the screen,
>> Eventually when viewed later syn-hilite has disappeared in all but a
>> few items.
>>
>> Just scrolling code off visible area and back doesn't appear to do it
>> ... I'm not sure exactly what does.
>>
>> If I return to edit some already entered code that has lost its
>> syn-hilite, the hilite returns the instant I make any
>> modification. But then later I see its left again.
>>
>> Calling M-x `font-lock-fontify-buffer' does not seem to re-instate the
>> syntax highlight where it has already gone away either.
>                    ^^^^^
>
> What is this "where"?  Region of buffers, or buffers as a whole?

Sorry, even though english is my first language I speak it with near
illiteracy. 

`where' was supposed to mean any spots in the code where font-locking
has already stopped working, are not revivied by M-x
font-lock-fontify-buffer.  That is, I can see some code with no
font-locking visible in current buffer, but it does not get fixed when
font-lock-fontify-buffer is run.

That isn't quite right either, because some of it does get fixed.
Also with the M-x normal-mode seems to re-font-lock something but not
others.   Very confusing and maddening.

If I edit a block where many elements have lost syntax coloring... For
a brief while the syntax coloring is re-established near the cursor
line.

Maybe 2/3 lines in either direction.

Another part to this... not sure if its related is that mic-paren-mode
is now giving false readings at times... I've never noticed that
before.

Any (`) backtick between matching parens (even in comments...) might
cause a false reading it seems



> Just 2 pieces of how I view similar problems:
>
>   a) cperl-mode distributed with RMS Emacs is completely borken.  See
>      "my" versions;

This is the version that came with emacs-23:
(From top of the file)

;;; cperl-mode.el --- Perl code editing commands for Emacs

;; Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
;; 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
;;     Free Software Foundation, Inc.

;; Author: Ilya Zakharevich
;;	Bob Olson
;; Maintainer: Ilya Zakharevich <ilyaz@cpan.org>
;; Keywords: languages, Perl

;; This file is part of GNU Emacs.

;; GNU Emacs is free software: you can redistribut...

   [...]

Is there something newer or better available?
>
>   b) I think I have seen things similar to what you describe - about
>      5-7 years ago.

It appears my version of cperl-mode is not totally outdated eh?.

Any other problems that might cause this? something to do with shadow
paths or whatever its called?

I went to the cperl-mode.el file by calling M-x find-library inside
emacs.  So, I guess that means that is the one loading... right.

Any other input would be greatly appreciated... My coding skills are
terrible enough without having syntax coloring problems.

Re: cperl-mode and fontlock

[Harry Putnam]

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> writes:

>   a) cperl-mode distributed with RMS Emacs is completely borken.  See
>      "my" versions;

Just to let you know... I guess the newest emacs-23 cvs version has a
version that is pretty close to your 6.2 version.  Although I notice
quite a hefty byte count difference.

  -rw-r--r--+  1 reader reader 329659 Sep 25 20:56 cperl-mode.el
  -rw-r--r--+  1 reader reader 402912 Sep 25 21:05 cperl-mode.el-ilya

The one with the ilya extension I just downloaded from your repo.  And
the emacs-23 from cvs just now too.

As you see the size is different by 73253 bytes.

I found when I load either yours or the cvs one... my syntax highlight
(font-lock) problems disappear.

Your version throws a lot of byte-compile warnings when compiled with
emacs-23 but seems to work just fine.

Thanks for the tip about there being a difference.  

But from what I just read on emacs.devel .. the newest version in 23
is synced against your latest.