02-09-2023, 11:54 AM
Syntax coloring is nearly impossible to get at the user's satisfaction. There are too many possibilities to cover. This is shown well by NPPP as well as the popular text editors for Linux such as Gedit and Kate.
The QB64 IDE occasionally becomes confused with what it thinks are keywords that it should highlight or not highlight. It's difficult to predict where an user would write something somewhere in the code. Add to that the fact that many "statements" in BASIC could also be functions, and some "functions" could exist on LHS, MID$() being a prime example.
Personally I don't like using periods to name subprograms, and I wish there was a "WITH" like Pascal, not like Freebasic which allows the dots to hang in the front of field names, that could otherwise avoid the typing of "variable-dot-field".
Might be that the IDE has logic to take "dot-name" always as a field name from an UDT, and therefore it has to be "trained" to check out which names could be fields. "dot-name-dot-name" could be easily checked if the program has no UDT's but that's kind of difficult in a major project.
The QB64 IDE occasionally becomes confused with what it thinks are keywords that it should highlight or not highlight. It's difficult to predict where an user would write something somewhere in the code. Add to that the fact that many "statements" in BASIC could also be functions, and some "functions" could exist on LHS, MID$() being a prime example.
Personally I don't like using periods to name subprograms, and I wish there was a "WITH" like Pascal, not like Freebasic which allows the dots to hang in the front of field names, that could otherwise avoid the typing of "variable-dot-field".
Might be that the IDE has logic to take "dot-name" always as a field name from an UDT, and therefore it has to be "trained" to check out which names could be fields. "dot-name-dot-name" could be easily checked if the program has no UDT's but that's kind of difficult in a major project.