Help talk:Syntax Highlighting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) m (→Broken When Logged In: works for ma) |
(→Assembly Languages: new section) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
-- works for me ..[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 19:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
-- works for me ..[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 19:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Assembly Languages == |
|||
Let's hope this is an appropriate spot for this. The page seems dead... |
|||
The assembly languages are a mess. Besides the other issues, the lang tags, well, there's only one: '''asm'''. And it's for x86. Two ideas for cleaning it up:<ol> |
|||
<li> merge all known instructions into asm (so that asm becomes the only assembly lang tag). This might be a bureaucratic nightmare but it's bound to be done quickly and quietly. |
|||
<li> have some sort of 'inheritance' in GeSHi files (is this possible?) so that asm will define: |
|||
* common instructions that most/all assembly languages recognise (such as MOV) |
|||
* common pseudo-instructions that most assemblers recognise (such as EQU, SET, macro) |
|||
* colour definitions for instructions, comments, numbers, etc. |
|||
asm would then be extended with additional instructions by each different assembly language. There should be a standard format for them, such as asm_MIPS, asm_ARM, etc. Unrecongised lang tags should default to asm if their specific tag doesn't exist (if that's also possible). |
|||
</ol> |