Template Class Constructor Incorrect Highlighting

[BeefaloKing]

Prerequisites

• [X] Put an X between the brackets on this line if you have done all of the following:
  • Reproduced the problem in Safe Mode: https://flight-manual.atom.io/hacking-atom/sections/debugging/#using-safe-mode
  • Followed all applicable steps in the debugging guide: https://flight-manual.atom.io/hacking-atom/sections/debugging/
  • Checked the FAQs on the message board for common solutions: https://discuss.atom.io/c/faq
  • Checked that your issue isn't already filed: https://github.com/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+user%3Aatom
  • Checked that there is not already an Atom package that provides the described functionality: https://atom.io/packages

Description

Both the name and initializer list of template class constructors have incorrect syntax highlighting when defined outside the class declaration. Edit: Added clarity in screenshot

Steps to Reproduce

1. Define a constructor for a template class outside the class declaration

   
   template<typename T> class foo
   {
   public:
   foo();
   private:
   T *data;
   };

class bar { public: bar(); private: int *data; };

template foo::foo() : data(nullptr) {}

bar::bar() : data(nullptr) {}

### Versions

Atom    : 1.38.2
Electron: 2.0.18
Chrome  : 61.0.3163.100
Node    : 8.9.3

### Possible Related Issues

https://github.com/atom/language-c/issues/90

[rsese]

Thanks for the report! Noting I see the same thing as your screenshot in 1.40.0-nightly10 on macOS 10.12.6.

Both the name and initializer list of template class constructors have incorrect syntax highlighting when defined outside the class declaration.

Just so I'm on the same page, can you point to exactly where this is in your example?

[BeefaloKing]

The foo() and data(nullptr) on line 17. These should match the highlighting for the constructor bar() on line 20.

Additionally, if foo() were not a constructor, and had a return type, it would be highlighted correctly. (e.g. template<typename T> int foo<T>::foobar())

[rsese]

Heyo @maxbrunsfeld :wave:! We talked about this one today and think it might belong in https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp but were wondering if you could confirm?

[maxbrunsfeld]

think it might belong in https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp but were wondering if you could confirm?

Yup, you're right: we currently don't parse those template constructors correctly. Thanks!

[BeefaloKing]

Should I create a separate issue over there or is this (part of) an already known issue?

[rsese]

ahh sorry, missed your comment @BeefaloKing - I went ahead and copied over your issue so we'll close this in favor of that issue: https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp/issues/50.