Have a face for function definition

[KristofferC]

Some colorschemes have a difference between a function definition and a function call:

OhMyREPL also has this:

But JuliaSyntaxHighlighting gives both of these a call face:

julia> using JuliaSyntaxHighlighting: highlight, highlight!

julia> str = """
       functioncall(x)

       function functiondef(x)
           return x
       end
       """;

julia> highlight(str);

julia> Base.annotations(ans)
9-element Vector{@NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}}:
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((1:12, :face, :julia_funcall)) <------
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((13:13, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((15:15, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((18:25, :face, :julia_keyword))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((27:37, :face, :julia_funcall))  <------
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((38:38, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((40:40, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((46:51, :face, :julia_keyword))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((55:57, :face, :julia_keyword))

It would be nice if this could be detected.

[tecosaur]

Done in 2980cb5 🙂

[KristofferC]

🎉

Short form functions can be left for another day heh

[tecosaur]

Short form functions should work too:

julia> highlight("f(x) = 3") |> Base.annotations
6-element Vector{@NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}}:
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((1:1, :face, :julia_funcdef))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((2:2, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((3:3, :face, :julia_funcdef))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((4:4, :face, :julia_rainbow_paren_1))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((6:6, :face, :julia_assignment))
 @NamedTuple{region::UnitRange{Int64}, label::Symbol, value}((8:8, :face, :julia_number))

...though there seems to have been some collateral damage with short-form function arguments

[KristofferC]

Maybe

JuliaSyntaxHighlighting.jl/test/runtests.jl

Lines 6 to 9 in 2980cb5

	# We could go to the effort of testing each individual highlight face,
	# however here we're aiming for the much lower bar of ensuring that
	# `highlight` consistently returns a reasonable result.
	# This also avoids testing as much of the particulars of JuliaSyntax.

should be revisited?

Should be fairly easy to get a 🤖 to dump out a somewhat good test suite I think

[tecosaur]

Yea, it would be good to actually have a good set of tests, it's just that I didn't want to half-arse it and doing it properly is a pain. 🤖 is a solid idea though...

I do wonder if making a mini-DSL for an "expected result" is feasible though, so we could make test that look something like (off the top of my head):

@test hlmatch("""
【keyword function】 【funcdef functiondef】【paren (】x【paren )】
  【keyword return】 x
【keyword end】""")

[tecosaur]

...though there seems to have been some collateral damage with short-form function arguments

Fixed.

To github.com:JuliaLang/JuliaSyntaxHighlighting.jl.git
 ! [remote rejected] main -> main (protected branch hook declined)

Oh darn, somebody finally turned on branch protection 🥲

[KristofferC]

Wasn't me 🎶