Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:25:12 +0600
What a nice place to flame... :)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:47:16PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Second, this argument would be easier to accept if there in fact were
> an equally innovative tool capable of providing all the editing
> goodies Emacs normally does, for Haskell. But I don't know of one,
> even now, 10 years or so after Haskell's birth.
Well, vim, though maybe dumb, is often accounted as having
better syntax highlighting (I had no chance to prove that,
since dont use emacs). At least, the examples you provided
caused no problem. Can you present the original problem with
' and ('s - I'd like to check how it does?
There are quite simple parsing based on regexps (and some
very common "shadowing" principles). You could look at their
syntax file, and maybe port it to emacs.