Re: Small improvements to ruby-mode

[Bozhidar Batsov <bozhidar@batsov.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1704 bytes --]

On 9 July 2013 20:18, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

> On 09.07.2013 20:07, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
>
>> Currently we use the same face (font-lock-type-face) for both
>> classes/modules and constants. Classes and Modules are mandatory
>> CamelCase(although Camel_Case is also valid, albeit it's considered
>> extremely poor style) and just about everyone uses SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE
>> for constants so I'd suggest to use font-lock-constant-face for constants.
>>
>
> Oh, but we already use font-lock-constant-face. For symbols. :)
>

Yep, I'm aware of that. Lisp modes use `font-lock-constant-face` for
keywords (that are essentially the same as Ruby symbols) as well. I guess
ideally we would have a separate face for symbols that simply derives
`font-lock-constant-face` and give theme maintainers the ability to
override it. I think the only face we're not currently using is the
preprocessor face.


>
> Considering that, in Ruby, class names are also constants, highlighting
> both with the same face doesn't look too bad.
>

While class names are actually constants, the reverse is obviously not the
same - therefore my desire to separate them.


>
> I guess we can swap the two faces, but I'm kind of used to the way
> ruby-mode buffers look now. IOW, users may find it disruptive.
>

Since in a typical Ruby program class and module names are used much more
than "regular" constants I don't think the change would be particularly
disruptive.
classes and modules continue to use the type face, constants start using
the constant face, symbols continue to use the constant face (and
optionally there is the ability to customize it). In the long run such a
change would surely be beneficial.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2561 bytes --]