Comment by taeric
1 day ago
Its a big shame, as my preference for how to see code would 100% fall in a "literate style" if I could get it. I'd love an even more dynamic view than that style, if I could. But, I'm fairly sure that 100% correct syntax highlighting would not be possible in that world? Especially in some of the more complicated syntax options out there.
I'm also curious on how many times you have used something that didn't get syntax highlighting correct? Even using some of the more advanced cweb features of org-mode, it typically gets things more correct than not. And I don't think it is using anything more than regexps? (I have not checked to see how the tree sitter stuff interacts with cweb in many blocks. Will try and look into that.)
Something that seems quite common on the false-negative side is type names not being highlighted at all when they are the names of user-defined types, even though they're being used in type positions in the code. Dumb highlighting will just have a fixed list of type names it knows about, because it is not as aware of the positional aspect of usages.
And this is an example where I feel this is strikingly like proper name usage in language. Everyone has a different set of proper names that they have ingrained in their mind for so long that, hearing them, they will jump out differently than other proper names. We literally ingrain a fixed list of names in our brains starting at a very young age.