From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12916 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2005 20:31:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 12884 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2005 20:31:21 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:31:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NKVK5C011849 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:31:20 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j7NKVFV10316; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:31:15 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j7NKVDZa029493; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:31:14 -0400 Message-ID: <430B8791.2070909@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:31:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Th.R.Klein" CC: insight@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting References: <42F134B1.8080805@web.de> In-Reply-To: <42F134B1.8080805@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 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