Currently there's very mild support for "asm" as a language type, but the definition file seems to just be partial support for Intel assembly.

I'd like to have better support for ARM assembly, but I'm not sure if people would be interested in that, or what it should be called, etc.

I think that the existing language definition should be renamed to intel_asm and then the new definition should be added as arm_asm, or something like that. On the other hand they both have file names with .s extensions so the editor would probably not handle that too well.

Thoughts?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.