missing syntax

Post a reply

:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: missing syntax

Re: missing syntax

Post by robert » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:30 am

Hmm... a poll of what language to add next isn't a bad idea. I used to have such a beast on this forum (?) but it never got too many replies. In any case, all of the languages I use (or have used) regularly are already implemented, so anything new will have to be done just from language specs. I'd feel much more comfortable if somebody who actually knew the language used RSTA with it regularly to verify the highlighting worked before making an "official" release with it.

CSS and bash (via a generic Unix shell) highlighting are both already implemented, feel free to give them a shot to see what you think!

EDIT: Added a poll in this thread.

missing syntax

Post by JustSomeDude » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:13 am

Nice job, but there are some big gaps in syntax support.

Where is Scheme, LISP, R, BASH, DTD, CSS, LaTex, Octave, Maxima, PROLog, BASIC (mono/.NET/Gambas/VB), Ada, Eifel, Haskel, and others? The only ones I personally care for are R, BASH and Octave, but there are others...

You should keep a vote count of what people are up for!