8000 Add more C++11 highlighting by jwakely · Pull Request #10 · vim-jp/vim-cpp · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
8000

Add more C++11 highlighting #10

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 1, 2013
Merged

Add more C++11 highlighting #10

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 1, 2013

Conversation

jwakely
Copy link
Contributor
@jwakely jwakely commented Mar 31, 2013
  • __cplusplus macro
  • thread_local keyword
  • <atomic> macros
  • raw strings

8000
@mattn
Copy link
Member
mattn commented Apr 1, 2013

Thank you. It seems ok to me. @osyo-manga @usagi How do you think?

I prefer separate them by if !exists("cpp_no_cpp11").

@usagi
Copy link
usagi commented Apr 1, 2013

I think about adbefa2 c8a6c82 bc54412 , there are no problems.

But, I have a one question for ecc8719 .

These two keywords are no problems:

  • "ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT" is in the C++11 spec. 29.7 .
  • "ATOMIC_VAR_INIT" is in the C++11 spec. 29.6.5 .

But, the other keywords does not exist at least in the C++11 spec(ref: N3337).

  • "ATOMIC_BOOL_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_CHAR_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_CHAR16_T_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_CHAR32_T_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_WCHAR_T_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_SHORT_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_INT_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_LONG_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_LLONG_IS_LOCK_FREE"
  • "ATOMIC_POINTER_IS_LOCK_FREE"

These keywords are unspecified in the C++11. And, the spec 29.4 defined:

29.4 Lock-free property
#define ATOMIC_BOOL_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_CHAR_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_CHAR16_T_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_CHAR32_T_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_WCHAR_T_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_SHORT_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_LONG_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_LLONG_LOCK_FREE unspecified
#define ATOMIC_POINTER_LOCK_FREE unspecified

And, these unspecified keywords has slightly different (ex.: "ATOMIC_BOOS_IS_LOCK_FREE" in the patch vs. "ATOMIC_BOOL_LOCK_FREE" in the spec.).

Do you know the source of these keywords in the patch?

I think good idea for the @mattn 's proposal to separate the files.

@jwakely
Copy link
Contributor Author
jwakely commented Apr 1, 2013

Oops, those were just spelling mistakes while typing them in. I've pushed a corrected version.

I don't understand @mattn's suggestion.

@usagi
Copy link
usagi commented Apr 1, 2013

@jwakely It's okay. Thanks for your fix and patches.
@mattn I think these patches has no problems.

@osyo-manga
Copy link

Thank you patches :)
I think it's okay.

@mattn
Copy link
Member
mattn commented Apr 1, 2013

@usagi @osyo-manga Thank to your reviews.

@jwakely Ok, I'll merge it

@mattn mattn closed this Apr 1, 2013
@mattn mattn reopened this Apr 1, 2013
mattn added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2013
@mattn
Merge pull request #10 from jwakely/master
c43c0a6 
Add more C++11 highlighting
@mattn mattn merged commit c43c0a6 into vim-jp:master Apr 1, 2013
@mattn
Copy link
Member
mattn commented Apr 1, 2013

Thank you all. I merged it.

@osyo-manga
Copy link

Thank you @mattn :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@jwakely @mattn @usagi @osyo-manga
0