Skip to content

Conversation

@aarondill
Copy link

@aarondill aarondill commented Dec 6, 2022

Fixes #456 by rewriting regular expressions for block comments.

Known Bugs:

Whitespace directly before a block comment is required(as it was before). This was maintained to make it harder to accidentally create "ghost" blocks, where an open tag occurs within an inline comment, causing future lines to appear styled when they shouldn't. This bug is still easily recreatable by typing // /* but is unlikely to affect many users in it's current state.

Additional Considerations:

An attempt was made to keep the code as similar as possible to the original, as well as keep consistency with inline comments. As such, the openings of block comments are styled with the first tag, if one occurs on the same line as the opening.

A star(*) immediately following the commentBlockStart will not be considered a multiline comment for the sake of later parsing JSdoc comments, so my patches don't apply to any comment that starts with a star(*).

I have tested this patch with JavaScript, HTML, and Python, but a more thorough testing with other languages is both welcome and encouraged.

@aarondill
Copy link
Author

@aaron-bond, I’m wondering if you’ve noticed either of my recent pull requests(or their corresponding issues)? they each fix inconsistencies and allow for use of this extension in more areas without extra effort from the user(such as dis-allowing single line block comments)

@aaron-bond
Copy link
Owner

Yeah, I'd seen these come in. There's quite a bit of regression testing involved (shame on me for not automating the shit out of this) which is my main blocker when it comes to PRs. The thing is that these requests usually end up changing a behaviour someone requested in the past, so it's a tricky balance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Block comments have extremely irregular selection

2 participants