On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:30:12 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, I'd say either we make the filetype system more flexible what Nick has already begun (wow!)
@Nick, you replied previously that you didn't expect to implement a fully extendible filetype system (except as a dream :-) but how far are you planning to go? For example using an existing lexer/tag parser so no programming is needed, could it make enough of a separate filetype to do the things I've listed above?
I think using an existing lexer (even with separate custom-FT styles) and using an existing tag parser seems fairly straightforward to implement, I might look at it soon.
Perhaps other things can be implemented gradually, but only if it makes sense for the codebase - I don't think that we should add a lot of code to support anything. But adding a little/replacing existing code to be more flexible seems OK IMO.
Regards, Nick