You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
.dtx files are "documented tex files" which compile to produce .cls / .sty files and .pdf documentation from the same source. In .dtx files, the uncommented code is added to the .cls / .sty, while commented code is recompiled separately to produce the .pdf documentation. It's a bizarre system but it's the standard documentation approach for tex packages. Reason I bring it up: the commented code is valid tex code, and I wish we could highlight it (in a new scope). Currently, it is all treated as comment.
Issue
Commented code in .dtx files is not highlighted.
Request
Add a new scope to identify: .dtx file name and line starts with %
Highlight the line as standard tex code.
Allow users to style the scope, e.c. all italics / different background color.
Hope this makes sense! I might try this myself but I've never worked with grammars before...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Different from #36 and PR126
Background
.dtx files are "documented tex files" which compile to produce .cls / .sty files and .pdf documentation from the same source. In .dtx files, the uncommented code is added to the .cls / .sty, while commented code is recompiled separately to produce the .pdf documentation. It's a bizarre system but it's the standard documentation approach for tex packages. Reason I bring it up: the commented code is valid tex code, and I wish we could highlight it (in a new scope). Currently, it is all treated as comment.
Issue
Commented code in .dtx files is not highlighted.
Request
%
Hope this makes sense! I might try this myself but I've never worked with grammars before...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: