Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Transparent Highlighting Group

Expand Messages
  • Nikolai Weibull
    Sometimes you want to disable the highlighting of a syntax group. There are various ways to do this with varying results. Sometimes you want the group to be
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Sometimes you want to disable the highlighting of a syntax group.
      There are various ways to do this with varying results. Sometimes you
      want the group to be displayed transparently, i.e., taking the color
      of whatever it's contained in. An example is the redirection
      operators of a shell, e.g., Zsh. Sometimes people want them displayed
      as keywords, sometimes they just shouldn't be highlighted at all. The
      thing is, redirection operators can be contained within a string:

      echo "$(<file)"

      It'd be ugly if the < is displayed in black, as it is if you link that
      group to None. I propose that we add a highilighting group called
      Transparent so that anything linked to it will act as if it was
      defined with the "transparent" option to :syntax.

      nikolai
    • Nikolai Weibull
      ... So, what s the deal? Sure, this isn t as interesting as a discussion on the multitude of commands that we ll have to add to get something called tabs
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2/2/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@...> wrote:
        > Sometimes you want to disable the highlighting of a syntax group.
        > There are various ways to do this with varying results. Sometimes you
        > want the group to be displayed transparently, i.e., taking the color
        > of whatever it's contained in. An example is the redirection
        > operators of a shell, e.g., Zsh. Sometimes people want them displayed
        > as keywords, sometimes they just shouldn't be highlighted at all. The
        > thing is, redirection operators can be contained within a string:
        >
        > echo "$(<file)"
        >
        > It'd be ugly if the < is displayed in black, as it is if you link that
        > group to None. I propose that we add a highilighting group called
        > Transparent so that anything linked to it will act as if it was
        > defined with the "transparent" option to :syntax.

        So, what's the deal? Sure, this isn't as interesting as a discussion
        on the multitude of commands that we'll have to add to get something
        called "tabs" that we don't quite know how they should work but that
        we apparently need since everyone else have them. But I would think
        that at least someone beside me would be interested in a good, clean
        way of dealing with "dehighlighting" highlightings.

        nikolai
      • A. J. Mechelynck
        ... So, what should I say? I ve seen this email, and I don t know the answer. Best regards, Tony.
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 6, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Nikolai Weibull wrote:
          > On 2/2/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@...> wrote:
          >> Sometimes you want to disable the highlighting of a syntax group.
          >> There are various ways to do this with varying results. Sometimes you
          >> want the group to be displayed transparently, i.e., taking the color
          >> of whatever it's contained in. An example is the redirection
          >> operators of a shell, e.g., Zsh. Sometimes people want them displayed
          >> as keywords, sometimes they just shouldn't be highlighted at all. The
          >> thing is, redirection operators can be contained within a string:
          >>
          >> echo "$(<file)"
          >>
          >> It'd be ugly if the < is displayed in black, as it is if you link that
          >> group to None. I propose that we add a highilighting group called
          >> Transparent so that anything linked to it will act as if it was
          >> defined with the "transparent" option to :syntax.
          >
          > So, what's the deal? Sure, this isn't as interesting as a discussion
          > on the multitude of commands that we'll have to add to get something
          > called "tabs" that we don't quite know how they should work but that
          > we apparently need since everyone else have them. But I would think
          > that at least someone beside me would be interested in a good, clean
          > way of dealing with "dehighlighting" highlightings.
          >
          > nikolai
          >
          >
          >

          So, what should I say? I've seen this email, and I don't know the answer.


          Best regards,
          Tony.
        • Илья
          ... Why one cannot use transparent option to :syntax command in this case too? I m not strong in vim syntax scripts, but I suppose that to link
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 6, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Nikolai Weibull wrote:
            > Sometimes you want to disable the highlighting of a syntax group.
            > There are various ways to do this with varying results. Sometimes you
            > want the group to be displayed transparently, i.e., taking the color
            > of whatever it's contained in. An example is the redirection
            > operators of a shell, e.g., Zsh. Sometimes people want them displayed
            > as keywords, sometimes they just shouldn't be highlighted at all. The
            > thing is, redirection operators can be contained within a string:
            >
            > echo "$(<file)"
            >
            > It'd be ugly if the < is displayed in black, as it is if you link that
            > group to None. I propose that we add a highilighting group called
            > Transparent so that anything linked to it will act as if it was
            > defined with the "transparent" option to :syntax.
            >
            > nikolai
            Why one cannot use "transparent" option to :syntax command in this case too?

            I'm not strong in vim syntax scripts, but I suppose that to link < to
            some special highlighting group you would have to make match using :syntax.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.