using Scala in IntelliJ, you can already do
var c = s"some ${compound * expression}"
and have proper syntax highlighting for the ${compound * expression}. Scala allows you to define custom string interpolaters, to do other things
var c = javascript"var x = [1, 2, 3]"
Does anyone know how to fiddle with the custom-language-injection functionality to nicely highlight these custom string interpolators? I've messed around with the stuff under the File->Settings->Language Injections but it seems really confusing, and I can't find any existing injections that do the magic string interpolation syntax. Presumably that one is hard coded (since it also has the nice code navigation features) but i'm hopeful there'll be some way of getting it to recognize the nice something"..." syntax and highlighting it nicely for me.
You could do it by hand for each string using the "light bulb", but if you want to do it automatically for each string interpolator, I think you will have to write your own plugin (which may take some time if it is your first plugin).
You may have better answers/help in JetBrains forums directly.
Related
I'm trying to make a "very simple" syntax highlight for "cottle" (which is a script language used in a text-to-speech app dedicated to Elite:Dangerous).
All i want (at least at the beginning) is to have three different colours: Comments, "non-strings", and strings.
I started trying with the ST3 wiki, youtube tutorials, questions here.... but i can't sort out how to do it, 'cause the way the language work.
I'll try to show you an example
{ everything_between_a_pair_of_brackets_is_code }
everything outside all pairs of bracket is a string {_ and this is a comment. It begins with "_" and ends at the closing bracket }
{ This_is_code("but this is a string")
This_is_still_code("this is also a string {but_this_is_code(\"and a string\")} and this the end of the string")
}
My problem is how to define this kind of "nidification" in my cottle.sublime-syntax file. I managed to get the comment, but only the first one.
- EDIT -
This is a real script:
{event.item}
{if event.repairedfully:
fully repaired
|else:
partially repaired
{Occasionally(2,
cat(
OneOf("to ", "at "),
Humanise(event.health * 100),
" percent functionality"
)
)}
}
{Occasionally(2,
cat(OneOf(", ", "and is"), " ready for re-activation")
)}.
The output of this script could be "Engine module fully repaired." or "Engine module partially repaired, and is ready for re-activation."
Please note the last dot of the phrase, which in the code is after the last bracket.
This is another sample, with strings passed to functions inside other strings:
{OneOf("{ShipName()} has", "")}
{OneOf("left supercruise", "{OneOf(\"entered\", \"returned to\", \"dropped to\")} normal space")}
My question is:
how sublime-syntax files handle this kind of nidification?
Looking at the overview of the templating language over at https://cottle.readthedocs.io/en/stable/page/01-overview.html, it seems to be an easy syntax for which to write a .sublime-syntax for, but given the utter lack of resources for knowing how syntax files works in ST, I can understand it can be sometimes difficult to start or even understand.
So, I took the liberty of creating a starter syntax definition (the result of an hour & a half of boredom on a Saturday evening), which you can take and work upon. Note that I have not used the language and as such made it by just reading the docs and looking over code snippets.
You can find a gist for it here (https://gist.github.com/Ultra-Instinct-05/96fa99e1aaeb32b12d1e62109d61fcc2)
Here is a screenshot showing it in the color scheme I use (which follows the official scope naming guidelines).
It still lacks support for user defined functions (as I came to know from the docs) (and probably a few other things), but maybe that's something you can add to it !
Note that to use it, save the file as Cottle.sublime-syntax in your User package. Right now files having a .cottle extension are highlighted (because I don't know how you create a cottle file).
The syntax definition doesn't use any new feature added in ST4, so it should work the same in both ST3 & ST4.
There's a coding language called SugarCube designed for use in the Twine engine, which is used for text adventure games. Here's the Documentation for it. I'm not exactly an experienced coder - all I have is a few months in C# making a game in Unity - but I'd like to help a friend with his game, and hopefully writing his code in an editor instead of plaintext will help.
The only kind of code that matters is all marked with double angle brackets. Variables are marked with dollar signs $exampleVarand are declared and assigned using
<<set $exampleVar = "foo">>.
If and switch statements use closing tags similar to HTML:
<<if $exampleVar == "foo">>
// code
<</if>>
or
<<switch $exampleVar>>
<<case "foo">>
// code
<</switch>>
The guides I've found for custom syntax (including official documentation) are either outdated or assume you already know everything about YAML, which I don't. Advice?
I was wondering about some best practices regarding extraction of selectors to constants. As a general rule, it is usually recommended to extract magic numbers and string literals to constants so they can be reused, but I am not sure if this is really a good approach when dealing with selectors in Capybara.
At the moment, I have a file called "selectors.rb" which contains the selectors that I use. Here is part of it:
SELECTORS = {
checkout: {
checkbox_agreement: 'input#agreement-1',
input_billing_city: 'input#billing\:city',
input_billing_company: 'input#billing\:company',
input_billing_country: 'input#billing\:country_id',
input_billing_firstname: 'input#billing\:firstname',
input_billing_lastname: 'input#billing\:lastname',
input_billing_postcode: 'input#billing\:postcode',
input_billing_region: 'input#billing\:region_id',
input_billing_street1: 'input#billing\:street1',
....
}
In theory, I put my selectors in this file, and then I could do something like this:
find(SELECTORS[:checkout][:input_billing_city]).click
There are several problems with this:
If I want to know the selector that is used, I have to look it up
If I change the name in selectors.rb, I could forget to change it somewhere else in the file which will result in find(nil).click
With the example above, I can't use this selector with fill_in(SELECTORS[:checkout][:input_billing_city]), because it requires an ID, name or label
There are probably a few more problems with that, so I am considering to get rid of the constants. Has anyone been in a similar spot? What is a good way to deal with this situation?
Someone mentioned the SitePrism gem to me: https://github.com/natritmeyer/site_prism
A Page Object Model DSL for Capybara
SitePrism gives you a simple, clean and semantic DSL for describing
your site using the Page Object Model pattern, for use with Capybara
in automated acceptance testing.
It is very helpful in that regard and I have adjusted my code accordingly.
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).
I am coding a plugin for autodesk 3dsmax and they recommend to use the _T(x) macro for every string literal to make it work with unicode as well. I am using the stl string class a lot in this code. So do I have to rewrite the code: string("foo") to: string(_T("foo")) ? Actually the stl string class doesnt have a constructor for wchars, so it doesnt make sense, does it?
Thx
Look at the definition of "T" macro - it expands to "L" in "Unicode" builds or nothing in "non-Unicode" builds. If you want to keep using the string calss and follow the recommendation for your plugin, your best bet is to use something like tstring which would follow the same rules.
But the truth is - all this "T" business made a lot of sense 10 years ago - all modern Windows versions are Unicode-only and you can just use wstring.
You could create an own string class say xstring and use the _T for constants and then internally, depending on unicode or not switch to string or wstring. either that or instantiate xstring<yourchartype>