Thanks, Yuan for the feedback and explanation.

I am attaching the patch with the corrections pointed out by you.

In here

+This is used instead of `font-lock-builtion-face' directly because
> +otherwise the whole command, including the variable assignment part,
> +is fontified with with `font-lock-builtin-face'. An alternative to
> +this would be to declaration_command nodes to have a `name:' field.”
>
> I guess you meant “...for declaration_command node to have…”? (Declaimer:
> not native speaker)
>

You are right about the plural in nodes, as I was referring to a "class" of
commands. But I think "to" is the correct preposition. Thus I changed the
sentence to: *An alternative to this would be to declaration_commands to
have a `name:' field.*

Let me know what you think and if something else looks off.

-- 
João Paulo L. de Carvalho
Ph.D Computer Science |  IC-UNICAMP | Campinas , SP - Brazil
Postdoctoral Research Fellow | University of Alberta | Edmonton, AB - Canada
joao.carvalho@ic.unicamp.br
joao.carvalho@ualberta.ca