Why doesn't Micro use Nano's syntax coloring? about micro

[niten94]

It is not specified where questions will be posted but there have been other questions about decisions made that are posted in issues so it may be appropiate posting it in issues for now.

I have not checked why colorschemes are used in micro but I think they are used so that colors used in the syntax highlighting of all filetypes can be changed using one file. The color of some elements like comments and symbols in files would be the same with other types if the syntax definition is written properly.

Colors are written in the syntax definition in nano instead of colorschemes like in micro so the files used with syntax highlighting in nano cannot be copied or automatically converted only. There is a feature request of adding a colorscheme using colors in nano: #3037

[Andriamanitra]

Can you be more specific? What file are you trying to highlight, and what's wrong with it? The syntax files in micro originate from nano, although many of them have been improved since they were copied over.

[RealAprilF00lz]

Can you be more specific? What file are you trying to highlight, and what's wrong with it? The syntax files in micro originate from nano, although many of them have been improved since they were copied over.

• If I type "alias alias-test-1='ls'" in ~/.bashrc in Micro, the "test" and "1" have their own colors. Doesn't happen in Nano
• In .desktop files, Micro thinks semicolons mean the start of a comment. Nano's .desktop coloring is more simple but doesn't make this mistake
• Micro doesn't have coloring for .conf files, Nano at least has comment coloring

[Andriamanitra]

• If I type "alias alias-test-1='ls'" in ~/.bashrc in Micro, the "test" and "1" have their own colors. Doesn't happen in Nano

This sounds like a mistake in a regex in the bash syntax that would be pretty easy to address. I would open an issue for it (same goes for any other bugs you come across that don't already have an open issue).

• In .desktop files, Micro thinks semicolons mean the start of a comment. Nano's .desktop coloring is more simple but doesn't make this mistake

Missing .desktop syntax is already discussed in #3365

• Micro doesn't have coloring for .conf files, Nano at least has comment coloring

See #2179 (there is a good reason to not syntax highlight files with .conf extension: #2031)

[RealAprilF00lz]

• If I type "alias alias-test-1='ls'" in ~/.bashrc in Micro, the "test" and "1" have their own colors. Doesn't happen in Nano

This sounds like a mistake in a regex in the bash syntax that would be pretty easy to address. I would open an issue for it (same goes for any other bugs you come across that don't already have an open issue).

• In .desktop files, Micro thinks semicolons mean the start of a comment. Nano's .desktop coloring is more simple but doesn't make this mistake

Missing .desktop syntax is already discussed in #3365

• Micro doesn't have coloring for .conf files, Nano at least has comment coloring

See #2179 (there is a good reason to not syntax highlight files with .conf extension: #2031)

So Micro and Nano's syntax coloring aren't the same, right?

[Andriamanitra]

So Micro and Nano's syntax coloring aren't the same, right?

That's right. Like I said the syntax files originate from nano, but many of them have been added or improved since. Micro's syntax highlighting is generally better than what nano has built-in (and when it isn't you should open an issue to get it fixed).

You can take a look yourself:

• nano (built-in syntaxes): https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/nano.git/tree/syntax
• Improved nano syntaxes: https://github.com/scopatz/nanorc
• micro (combination of the previous two, although there are some differences now due to various patches to both nano and micro): https://github.com/zyedidia/micro/tree/master/runtime/syntax