Ionide-vscode-fsharp: Syntax highlighting

[dustinmoris]

Hi,

Not even sure if this is an Ionide issue, but I thought I'd raise it here and see if you think it should be moved somewhere else.

Currently (latest Ionide) I still get a lot of wrong syntax highlighting, e.g.:

Is this something which can be improved easily? It's not a big issue, but something which would be nice to have working more consistently at some point.

Thank you!

If you need the code for testing:

let private MinimumCapacity = 5000
let private MaximumCapacity = 100000

type private StringBuilderPool =

    [<DefaultValue; ThreadStatic>]
    static val mutable private instance : StringBuilder

    [<DefaultValue; ThreadStatic>]
    static val mutable private created : DateTimeOffset

    static member Rent () =
        let lifetime = DateTimeOffset.Now - StringBuilderPool.created
        let expired  = lifetime > TimeSpan.FromMinutes 10.0
        let sb       = StringBuilderPool.instance
        if not expired && sb <> null then
            StringBuilderPool.instance <- null
            sb.Clear()
        else new StringBuilder(MinimumCapacity)

    static member Return (sb: StringBuilder) =
        if sb.Capacity <= MaximumCapacity then
            StringBuilderPool.instance <- sb
            StringBuilderPool.created  <- DateTimeOffset.Now

[MangelMaxime]

Hello,

Sorry for the bug, this is something that can be improved.

I wasn't aware of the syntax static val mutable private created : DateTimeOffset so the grammar doesn't detect it correctly. I will work on a fix in the grammar tomorrow.

Docs for reference

[dustinmoris]

@MangelMaxime Yeah no worries. To be honest, if you maybe point me in the right direction I can try to do a PR as well.

[MangelMaxime]

@dustinmoris This new entry is probably tricky because it will need to handle balanced < & > expression for generics support.

If you want to give a try, please tell me so we are not both working on it. Here, are my first ideas on how to solve this problem.

We need to create a new entry to the grammar file, we can probably call it explicit_fields.

It needs to be placed in this list. And I believe it needs to be placed before the "#definition" entry.

Then we need to create the entry description, it's basically a regex and captures instruction to apply the correct scope to each group. However, this is going to be a complex entry because it needs to support balanced < & > characters in the type definition for generics support. There is already some entry that uses generic_declaration pattern.

[dustinmoris]

Ok, then maybe I'll try another issue next time which is better suited for someone who has never done anything like that before, but thanks for sharing your ideas!

[MangelMaxime]

Yes working on the grammar can be challenging :)

If you want, we have some up for grabs issues.

[seanpoulter]

Would you like me to create a new issue for a different issue with syntax highlighting @MangelMaxime?

[MangelMaxime]

Hello @seanpoulter yes please. You can create the issue here with a screenshot and if you can copy/paste the code in the issue so I don't have to type all by myself :)

[Krzysztof-Cieslak]

Moved both reports to separate issues in grammar repo.