Re: Small improvements to ruby-mode

[Bozhidar Batsov <bozhidar@batsov.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2843 bytes --]


On Sunday, June 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote: 
> On 23.06.2013 10:20, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
> > > I'm less sure about these. Every method on Kernel is usually called
> > > without an explicit receiver, and there are more of them.
> > > Let's wait for another opinion.
> > > 
> > 
> > There are more of them, but most of them exist only when ruby is invoked
> > with -n/-p (for perl-like scripting) - normally chomp, chomp!, chop, etc
> > are not bound, which means we should not add them to the built-in list,
> > since nobody is actually wring Ruby applications using them. Matz
> > himself recommends that all the command-like methods from Kernel be
> > treated as reserved words - meaning it's considered a bad idea for
> > someone to introduce variables or methods named this way. If they were
> > highlighted properly fewer developers would fail to recognize their
> > "special" status. Looking at the Kernel module's docs there are less
> > than 30 such commands and they've barely changed in recent years.
> > 
> 
> 
> That makes sense, but should we highlight them the same way as 
> keyword-like methods (which I've roughly defined for myself as stuff 
> having to do with control flow, code generation and loading)?
> 
> 

Those methods are only different in our minds - in the end of the time they are in the same bucket. That said we have two options:

1. Introduce some extra face for keyword-like built-in methods, that inherits from the keyword or built-in face by default and leave it to theme authors to make it distinct.  
2. Treat all built-ins as just built-ins.

I'm fine with both options, but if it were up-to-me I'd probably go with option 2, since I don't like to introduce additional complexity and option 2 corresponds more closely with the actual state of affairs.
> 
> > > 1) I don't subscribe to your principle of single quotes vs. double
> > > quotes. So, when I'm adding an interpolation to a string, it's usually
> > > double-quoted already.
> > > 
> > 
> > It's not exactly my principle :-)
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, it's in the style guide you're maintaining, and I haven't seen 
> this exact phrasing elsewhere, IIRC. And there are enough popular 
> projects that contradict or ignore it.
> 
> > The toggling between string and symbol is pretty useful.
> 
> Yes, I could've used it myself just the other day. It's not something I 
> do too often either, though.
> 
> > Btw, Dmitry, I noticed something strange about ruby-mode (at least in
> > 24.3) - the calculations for method and block boundaries seem to be off.
> > I'm not sure if you're aware of the problem or you need a more detailed
> > report.
> > 
> 
> 
> Not exactly sure what you mean, so yes, more details would be helpful. 
> But please try the current trunk first.
> 
> 

OK, I'll do some tests and I'll get back to you on this one. 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4219 bytes --]