highlight Python docstrings about nextvi

[kyx0r]

At the moment this is not possible due to pattern invariance, i.e. the start and end pattern consist of the same string pattern which is ambiguous. And what's possible won't be that great, for example:

{"py", "(\"\"\"[!\"\"\"]*)|(^[ \t]*\"\"\".*$)", {4 | SYN_IT}, {0}, 2},

In this case it will only work if starting string does not contain [ \t] and the ending pattern has it. Otherwise the priority is always given to the ending pattern due to shortest match first regex rule which won't trigger a start of a multiline block.

No matter how you look at it the patterns are the same (or could be the same theoretically).

One solution is to provide a way for user to specify the starting pattern such that the start and end are the same match group, and since they will be the same the 2nd match will terminate the blockhl.
This will be enough to terminate the block, but im not sure if highlighting """.* and .*""" will work. That's the case where everything before the first """ and after the last """ must not match .

I have to revisit this in the future.

Thank you.

…

On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 12:19 AM Kyryl ***@***.***> wrote: At the moment this is not possible due to pattern invariance, i.e. the start and end pattern consist of the same string pattern which is ambiguous. And what's possible won't be that great, for example: {"py", "(\"\"\"[!\"\"\"]*)|(^[ \t]*\"\"\".*$)", {4 | SYN_IT}, {0}, 2}, In this case it will only work if starting string does not contain [ \t] and the ending pattern has it. Otherwise the priority is always given to the ending pattern due to shortest match first regex rule which won't trigger a start of a multiline block. No matter how you look at it the patterns are the same (or could be the same theoretically). One solution is to provide a way for user to specify the starting pattern such that the start and end are the same match group, and since they will be the same the 2nd match will terminate the blockhl. This will be enough to terminate the block, but im not sure if highlighting """.* and .*""" will work. That's the case where everything before the first """ and after the last """ must not match . I have to revisit this in the future. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAH67YY7ZVMJZABSUB54LWTXWA5FLANCNFSM6AAAAAA3WFCVOI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Claude Marinier

[kyx0r]

Hi Claude,

I've made a promising change. Pull the last commit and try this pattern out:

{"/", "\"{3}.*\"{3}", {5 | SYN_IT}, {0}},
{"/", "((?:[!\"\"\"]*\"{3}\n$)|(?:^\"{3}.*)|\"{3})", {4 | SYN_IT}, {0}, -1},

It comes pretty close to what you want, here are the test cases:

   ashds """ sdhash
123
asdas
asd
hasdhas """ sdhadh

Not quite, hasdhas and sdhash are not highlighted

""" sdhash
123
asdas
asd
hasdhas """

All good.

""" sdhash
123
asdas
asd
hasdhas """df

Not quite, hasdhas not highlighted but the block is terminated.

""" sdhash
123
asdas
asd
"""

All good.

"""
123
asdas
asd
"""

All good.

absbdabs """ 123 asdas asd """ sdf s

All good.

""" 123 asdas asd """

All good.

hh """ 123 asdas asd """

All good.

""" 123 asdas asd """ hsdfhshd

All good.

On 2023-08-19, Kyryl wrote: Hi Claude, I've made a promising change. Pull the last commit and try this pattern out: {"/", "\"{3}.*\"{3}", {5 | SYN_IT}, {0}}, {"/", "((?:[!\"\"\"]*\"{3}\n$)|(?:^\"{3}.*)|\"{3})", {4 | SYN_IT}, {0},

-1}, Are these two patterns working together? It looks like the first one will detect a single line docstring, but not trigger on a multi-line docstring. I am assuming the .* will not include newlines. In more general contexts, some have suggested this pattern. Note the use of the non-greedy *? which nextvi supports. """[\s\S]*?""" I think nextvi's regex does not support meta characters, right? If so, is there an equivalent to the [\s\S] ? There remains the difficulty of the identical docstring start and end markers. The second pattern has three options: a line ending with """, a line beginning with """, and just """. Is the order of these three options significant?

It comes pretty close to what you want, here are the test cases:

This covers all the common uses of a docstring (in my limited experience). I could run into imaginative uses of docstrings. :-) Excellent! Thanks. P. S. I added the following to the Python section of conf. I like to highlight docstrings as comments. {"py", "\"{3}.*\"{3}", {2 | SYN_IT}, {0}}, {"py", "((?:[!\"\"\"]*\"{3}\n$)|(?:^\"{3}.*)|\"{3})", {2 | SYN_IT}, {0}, -1},

[kyx0r]

Are these two patterns working together? It looks like the first one will detect a single line docstring, but not trigger on a multi-line docstring. I am assuming the .* will not include newlines.

Yes, multiline patterns are those that contain non zero value for blkend struct member.

In more general contexts, some have suggested this pattern. Note the use of the non-greedy ? which nextvi supports. """[\s\S]?""" I think nextvi's regex does not support meta characters, right? If so, is there an equivalent to the [\s\S] ?

Right, [\s\S] is not supported because it can be achieved by just hard entering the character values into [],
I don't remember exactly but for example \s would be equalent to something like [ \t-\r]

There remains the difficulty of the identical docstring start and end markers. The second pattern has three options: a line ending with """, a line beginning with """, and just """. Is the order of these three options significant?

The order is significant, what comes first gets tested first.

This covers all the common uses of a docstring (in my limited experience). I could run into imaginative uses of docstrings. :-) Excellent! Thanks. P. S. I added the following to the Python section of conf. I like to highlight docstrings as comments.

Aye, I think I will add this to the base version as it demonstates single multiline pattern group. Its only valid if blkend is negative.

-Kyryl

Since triple double-quotes are also used for special strings, I need to reconsider this. That makes this more difficult: a docstring is a bare string appearing at the beginning of a file and following def, defclass, etc. https://peps.python.org/pep-0257/#what-is-a-docstring

On 2023-08-19, ClaudeM wrote: On 2023-08-19, Kyryl wrote: > Hi Claude, > > I've made a promising change. Pull the last commit and try > this pattern out: > > {"/", "\"{3}.*\"{3}", {5 | SYN_IT}, {0}}, > {"/", "((?:[!\"\"\"]*\"{3}\n$)|(?:^\"{3}.*)|\"{3})", {4 | SYN_IT}, {0},

-1},

Are these two patterns working together? It looks like the first one will detect a single line docstring, but not trigger on a multi-line docstring. I am assuming the .* will not include newlines. In more general contexts, some have suggested this pattern. Note the use of the non-greedy *? which nextvi supports. """[\s\S]*?""" I think nextvi's regex does not support meta characters, right? If so, is there an equivalent to the [\s\S] ? There remains the difficulty of the identical docstring start and end markers. The second pattern has three options: a line ending with """, a line beginning with """, and just """. Is the order of these three options significant? > It comes pretty close to what you want, here are the test cases: This covers all the common uses of a docstring (in my limited experience). I could run into imaginative uses of docstrings. :-) Excellent! Thanks. P. S. I added the following to the Python section of conf. I like to highlight docstrings as comments. {"py", "\"{3}.*\"{3}", {2 | SYN_IT}, {0}}, {"py", "((?:[!\"\"\"]*\"{3}\n$)|(?:^\"{3}.*)|\"{3})", {2 |

SYN_IT}, {0}, -1},

[kyx0r]

Ah, I see if docstring must be preceded by ): maybe a different approach could be used.

My idea of treating docstrings differently from other triple-quoted strings is not pythonic and deviates from what vim and emacs are doing. I was wrong. Triple-quoted strings are meant for multiline strings; docstrings are multiline strings and often have the triple-quotes on separate lines. The current solution works well enough for docstrings; as you pointed out, it cannot handle situations where things precede or follow the triple-quotes. It is starting to look like this is beyond the capabilities of regular expressions. Python is an exception. I will continue to think about this: what can a regular expression do that produces an acceptable compromise? Thank you for your help.

…

On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:58 PM Kyryl ***@***.***> wrote: Ah, I see if docstring must be preceded by ): maybe a different approach could be used. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAH67Y5B6V345FI7AHZUEITXWELHVANCNFSM6AAAAAA3WFCVOI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Claude Marinier