feat: Improve Operator highlighting

[ixti]

• Change color to red to match if, else, and others
• Add support for optional italicization of operators

Resolves: #69

[ixti]

Having fg1 for operators makes it look like regular text.

Before this patch

Default Config

With Enhanced List of Ruby Operators

let ruby_operators = 1

With this patch

Default Config

With Enhanced List of Ruby Operators

let ruby_operators = 1

Italicized Operators

let g:gruvbox_italicize_operators = 1

Italicized Operators With Enhanced List of Ruby Operators

let ruby_operators = 1
let g:gruvbox_italicize_operators = 1

[rbong]

Maybe it's because I've used plain operators for a long time but I personally prefer the original, I like being able to easily distinguish keywords from operators. Would be willing to merge with more support, or if someone has suggestions for another change that could make operators stand out more that's also appreciated.

[ixti]

What if we will use Orange for operators?

[ixti]

let g:gruvbox_improved_operators = 1

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

---

let g:gruvbox_improved_operators = 1
let g:gruvbox_italicize_operators = 1

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

[ixti]

FWIW, I'm fine for this PR to be rejected, as I'm not sure what I refer myself. The only reason I've started this was that I got used to colorized operators :D

[ixti]

I guess, I simply got used to these:

https://github.com/nanotech/jellybeans.vim/blob/ef83bf4dc8b3eacffc97bf5c96ab2581b415c9fa/colors/jellybeans.vim#L491-L492

hi! link Operator Structure
hi! link Conceal Operator

[rbong]

I do like orange for operators. If you change it, I will probably leave this open for a bit to allow people to leave their opinion, since it's a pretty major change.

[ixti]

Linking Operator to aqua might be nice looking too:

[ixti]

@rbong Should I make it "configurable" (fg1 vs orange)?

[ixti]

@rbong I've updated color to orange. Here are new screenshots:

---

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

---

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

let g:gruvbox_italicize_operators = 1

---

[ixti]

Updated screenshots, after #178 has been merged.

---

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

---

let ruby_operators        = 1
let ruby_pseudo_operators = 1

let g:gruvbox_italicize_operators = 1

[rbong]

I personally don't think it should be configurable, there are enough variations as it is. Cyan looks fine too, I still prefer orange a bit more.

[ixti]

I personally don't think it should be configurable, there are enough variations as it is.

I agree.

Cyan looks fine too, I still prefer orange a bit more.

Same here. No strong preference, but somehow orange seems a bit more appealing.

[ixti]

@rbong I feel myself a bit dumb, but I think we should revert #178 if we merge this PR, to keep things tidy. defined? is an Operator by default, so with orange color it will already stand out:

---

let g:ruby_operators = 0 " default

---

let g:ruby_operators = 1

[rbong]

I know the goal is to get defined? to stand out a bit more, but the documentation does define it as a "keyword", so I am happy to leave it as Keyword unless if they're using that term differently. Let me know if that doesn't make sense, because I don't use Ruby much.

[ixti]

@rbong defined? is a keyword. But so is alias. :D

This is what ruby.vim syntax has:

hi def link rubyOperator        Operator
hi def link rubyDefinedOperator     rubyOperator

It has pretty almost lowest precedence, thus:

defined? X && Y == Z

Means:

defined?(X && Y == Z)

I feel it's fine to highlight defined? as keyword, but on the other hand, I think it's better to leave the decision to ruby.vim ;D

PS: Sorry for making useless noise. Just trying to make ruby highlighting with gruvbox perfect ;))

[rbong]

It's not worthless noise, I think it's a very worthwhile discussion.

The weird thing about vim syntax files is that they are normally not maintained either by Bram or by language maintainers, so they are not necessarily authoritative. Usually they are pretty good, but I would listen to the community first and the syntax file second. Ideally the syntax file itself would handle this, but you need to contact the syntax maintainer and I realize they might not be responsive.

Also - interesting note, the defined? syntax highlighting in GitHub shows it as distinct from both operators and keywords.

[ixti]

I see. I got used to defined? being highlighted as keyword, but after I've seen it highlighted as operator, I can't go back ;)) Basically defined? is a keyword, but it's primary usage is to be part of conditionals:

# @return [Boolean]
def memoized
  return @memoized if defined?(@memoized) && !@memoized.nil?

  @memoized = some_method
end

def reset!
  @memoized = nil
end

def some_method
  case rand
  when ..0.4 then true
  when ..0.8 then false
  end
end

or, conditional code declaration:

if defined? Concurrent::Set
  Set = Concurrent::Set
else
  class Set
    # ...
  end
end

[rbong]

There's been enough time to give feedback on this. I'm going to merge it. It's a big change but I'm sure we will get feedback in issues if anyone notices and doesn't like the change.