Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

Th.R.Klein wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I've ask Vineeth if the developing of the Patch already have started.
> Since Vineeth told me that this is not the case.
> So I'm sending here a patch, which should carefully reviewed.
> The method isn't the fastest but it seems OK for the moment.

I apologize for the long delay, but I'm really conflicted on this patch.

As much as I would like to see syntax highlighting, I'm not entirely 
sure that I like the approach that has been taken. I would prefer, of 
course, a real parser for these things. Gdb contains parsers for C/C++, 
Java, ADA, and whatever else is supported.

On the other hand, we have nothing today. Zippo. Nadda. That's a 
compelling reason to take what you've kindly offered.

So I guess the best compromise for me is to accept your patch, BUT, I 
would like to see it a bit more modular, so that the parsing engine can 
be replaced with something more efficient. I think the actual parsing or 
regexp'ing should be done in a separate class.

Barring that, there is one more hurdle to overcome: copyright. Unlike 
most of the patches that I see here, this patch definitely is not even 
remotely trivial. So we need to get you (and your company if involved) 
to sign an assignment. The problem is, that assignment is to Red Hat, 
not the FSF, since Insight is officially owned (albeit carelessly) by 
Red Hat.

I haven't a clue how complicated this will be, but I know that Cygwin is 
in a similar position.

I will ask the Cygwin maintainers for advice, and I'll get back to you 
off-list.

Please don't despair -- I haven't forgotten about anybody or his 
patches. [Although a gentle reminder works wonders every once in a 
while! :-)]

Keith