On Sunday, March 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 02.03.2014 13:03, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
> > Native regexp support is preferable IMO. After all - regexps are not
> > strings. If they were treated differently we’d also be able to have
> > extra highlighting for things like named groups, quantifiers, regexp
> > classes, etc. I guess, however, that this would require a lot of work.
> >  
>  
>  
> Since the regexp syntax can be different between languages, we probably  
> won't get all of that automatically. The direct benefits from the native  
> support I can see is highlighting comments (for regexps with appropriate  
> modifiers, in languages that support that), new faces for regexp itself,  
> and maybe for groups, quantifiers, etc.
>  
>  

That would be totally sufficient, but I have no idea how much work it would require.  
>  
> The highlighting of the elements inside regexp would probably have to be  
> done the old-fashioned way, in font-lock-keywords (although that code  
> could be shared between many languages). We could implement something  
> like it right now, the main difference is just the lack of standard faces.
>  
>  

Many modes introduce "non-standard” faces, so the lack of non-standard faces is not a significant problem I think (though I’d love to see faces for regexps, command execution (%x, `` as in sh-mode) and symbols/keywords (as they are present in many languages outside Ruby).