Re: [Evolution] Request for additions/corrections in Evolution

[David Hoover <karma deadmoose com>]

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 12:54, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 13:30, Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
> > I find it great having color on things you edit, makes it easier to
> > read. I dont think I'd be wery happy if I e.g.edited some source
> > code in vim, removed a quote " around a string, and vim didnt fix
> > the color for the rest of the source when I put it back again..
> This is a completely separate issue, one is doing syntax highlighting
> and the other is trying to be smart on arbitrary text that someone else
> wrote.
Isn't syntax highlighting more or less by definition, "be[ing] smart on
arbitrary text that someone ... wrote"?

Like when I use vim to edit my mailspool, and it's able to color it, and
make citations cyan, based solely on the text?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying these two cases are
"completely separate issue[s]":
        1. vim (a text editor) looks at some arbitrary text in its
           buffer (which was typed, or read from a file, or whatever)
           and it goes "Hey, I've been told to color this using my rules
           for coloring email, so if it starts with >, make it cyan"
        2. Evolution's mail composer (a text editor) has to look at some
           arbitrary text in its buffer (which was typed, or included
           when you hit reply, or whatever), and goes "Hey, I'm coloring
           this using my rules for coloring email (since that's all I
           ever do), so if it starts with >, make it cyan"

How is it a completely separate issue? One's a text editor that has
zillions of different rules to be able to syntax highlight any of a
number of different text formats, and the other is a very specialized
text editor, which would only need one set of rules explaining how to
syntax highlight one type of text.