Closed the-mikedavis closed 3 years ago
Hey @the-mikedavis! I intentionally didn't do it, because I'm not sure if atom should be colored differently based on context. On one side both tokens refer to a module, but in the end atoms and aliases are different beings. It's certainly subjective, but for some reference makup_elixir
does the same.
@josevalim any preference?
I am thinking they could be the same. It is already syntactically distinct so having them visually the same can help drive the point home they are all modules?
I'm not really opinionated here, so as you two agree it sounds perfectly fine to me!
I think the consistency with makeup is pretty desirable. I'd be willing to try out a PR to makeup to align the behavior.
Ah, actually this matches the behaviour in https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/pull/1904 too :)
Thanks! :cat:
Ah, actually this matches the behaviour in nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter#1904 too :)
Yep, which was me following what I saw in exdocs snippets, bringing things around full circle 😆
:wave: hello!
I'm integrating the new parser and highlight queries into the helix editor (see helix-editor/helix#830) and I noticed that a function call on an atom highlights differently than an alias (module). This PR adds a clause to the highlights to recognize that case and highlight the atom the same as an alias:
before | after
What do you think?