Open sogaiu opened 1 year ago
Ah sorry. May be I should have made this in the Discussions area
No an issue is fine. I don't even get notifications from discussions lol.
This is a good idea. Clojure uses java flavored regular expressions. I'm not sure how much they are different from that grammar. If it is it might be worth forking and calling it tree-sitter-java-regex
if the dialects of regex have enough differences.
I don't have the various flavors loaded into my head lately [1].
If I had to guess without looking too closely, I think this is likely to be some JavaScript flavor (or subset of one).
I also don't know / recall whether the various Clojure dialects all support the same regex syntax.
Perhaps this might come in handy eventually.
[1] Mostly working with PEGs in another language ;)
Came across this content among Lapce's files:
((regex_lit) @injection.content
(#set! injection.language "regex"))
@sogaiu check this out 855cddd124eb4ed9197281fe7f56697902b35cb1
Seems useful for other languages as well. Maybe even belongs in emacs core.
Thanks for the heads up!
Hope to take a look soon.
Ok, I gave it a try.
I see about capturing #"
and "
:
On a side note, may be it's worth requesting that tree-sitter-regex get added to tree-sitter-module?
I saw the following bit in the emacs-devel archives:
As an idea for "somewhere down the line", perhaps it would be interesting to consider the following...
Since tree-sitter-clojure can recognize regex literals, may be one could apply an appropriate regular expression grammar to highlight the portions within the double quotes.
I don't know how close this grammar is to Clojure's flavor of regex, but may be it or some appropriate modification to it (or something that inherits from it) might be used for the task.
For reference, the part of the manual being referred to in the quote above can be see in
.texi
form here. I didn't manage to find an HTML version. If you've got a recent enough Emacs from the emacs-29 branch, the info may be viewable from within emacs. Worked for me anyway...Ah sorry. May be I should have made this in the Discussions area?