Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Syntax (Score:2, Interesting)

    Syntax colouring requires some knowledge of syntax, but Codebliss doesn't seem to have that. For example, in "s/´/'/", it renders "180;/'/" as a comment. Its engine tries to render ""-delimited strings, but seems to be completely unaware of Perl's other quoting features.

    It's okay to try and fail, but does Codebliss try? I think it has *keyword colouring*, not *syntax colouring*.

    Some dictionary lookup tool (vandale.pl) looks like this in Codebliss:

    http://codedbliss.com/clipboard/copy/perl/1

    While wit
    • "s/´/'/" should have been "s/´/'/".
    • It's highlighting strings as well, so it's not just keywords. But, yeah, that's a bug.

      Folks who know more than I do say the owner is using GNU's source highlighter which has problems with regex highlighting. I'll send an email.

      BTW, scribble looks nice, but it only does HTML and Perl. :(

      • Re:Syntax (Score:2, Insightful)

        > BTW, scribble looks nice, but it only does HTML and Perl. :(

        Actually, it does any text you want :) Only Perl code is syntax coloured.

        Reason for this is that I dislike fake syntax colouring where no attempt is made at really parsing the source. Most "syntax" colourers simply recognize some keywords and colour simple strings, like this Codebliss thing. I'd rather have no syntax colouring at all.

        S::H::P has some bugs as of course only perl can parse Perl, but it's great for most code.