Thoughts on Syntax Highlighting

Published 2010-09-10

These thoughts are supposed to be a flog for language design, as without a new language they probably don't make a whole lot of sense.

Some highlighting should be just to show different quoting and interpolation regimes ie "string", 'string', """string""", /regex/, <bare words>, numbers, bitstrings/bitfields, vstrings?
Possibly instead, think of it as a view for 'literals'?
What about stupid literals, like literal xml?
Symbols? ie :symbol
Quasiquotation? ie `(This is a ,(+ 'quasi 'quoted) list)
Some highlighting should be a 'tint', ie comments? Such that it can be combined with different syntax highlighting.
Some kinds of structures should have highlighting around them ie anything whitespace dependant, some of the homoiconic stuff I was suggesting earlier...
Scope ie rainbow brackets for matching brackets (even different kinds of brackets)
Keywords
Operators
Types, typeclasses
ASTs? Macros? Lecros? Embedded DSLs, or simply embedded other languages? Markdown inside comments or docstrings?

Grammar first, then AST, then syntax highlighting, then grammar.

Yes, I know that does not form a DAG.