antler5
commented
8 months ago Oh, and just because I wanted to write this down somewhere: I checked a bunch of parsers to see what does this specific highlighting correctly (ie. SCM code in a define directive featuring unpaired quotes).
| ? | Parser | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| :white_check_mark: | Neovim (without tree-sitter) | Broadly correct, there are a few symbols highlighted in an out-of-place manner but it's sufficient. |
| :white_check_mark: | Github (Webview) | Highlights sparsely (or function call or variable refs, but correctly. |
| :x: | Github (IDE) | Does not parse. |
| :x: | Github (Gist Editor) | Chokes, parses the rest of the file into a string. |
| :x: | Emacs (make-mode.el) | Chokes, parses the rest of the file into a string. |
| :x: | Gitlab (Webview, Hightligh.js / Rouge) | Chokes, parses the rest of the file into a string. |
| :white_check_mark: | Gitlab (Web IDE, Monarch) | Oh my gosh, it's beautiful. It even does subparsing for the Scheme and Shell correctly! |
My basic example only accounted for the syntax of the file I had in from of me at the time. The grammar, of course, includes the definitions of all the syntax it produces, but I find it hard to reason about which targets we'll want to query in the first place without first surfacing them organically in an example Makefile. I could do with an example of a big ol' Makefile that covers most of Make's syntactical surface-area so we have a reference for mapping additional faces to.