There's been a lot of work on contrib syntax highlighting plugins. One should be
picked and added to ikiwiki core.
Ideally, it should support both converting whole source files into wiki
pages, as well as doing syntax highlighting as a preprocessor directive
(which is either passed the text, or reads it from a file).
The big list of possibilities
- [[plugins/contrib/highlightcode]] uses [[cpan Syntax::Highlight::Engine::Kate]],
operates on whole source files only, has a few bugs (see
here, and needs to be updated to
support [[bugs/multiple_pages_with_same_name]].
- [[cpan IkiWiki-Plugin-syntax]] only operates as a directive.
Interestingly, it supports multiple highlighting backends, including Kate
and Vim.
- [[plugins/contrib/syntax]] only operates as a directive
([[not_on_source_code_files|automatic_use_of_syntax_plugin_on_source_code_files]]),
and uses [[cpan Text::VimColor]].
- [[plugins/contrib/sourcehighlight]] uses src-highlight, and operates on
whole source files only. Needs to be updated to
support [[bugs/multiple_pages_with_same_name]].
- [[sourcecode|todo/automatic_use_of_syntax_plugin_on_source_code_files/discussion]]
also uses src-highlight, and operates on whole source files.
Updated to work with the fix for [[bugs/multiple_pages_with_same_name]]. Untested with files with no extension, e.g.
Makefile.
- [[users/jasonblevins]]'s code plugin uses src-highlight, and supports both
while file and directive use.
General problems
-
Using non-perl syntax highlighting backends is slow. I'd prefer either
using a perl module, or a multiple-backend solution that can use a perl
module as one option. (Or, if there's a great highlighter python module,
we could use an external plugin..)
-
Currently no single plugin supports both modes of operation (directive
and whole source file to page).
This is now fixed by the [[ikiwiki/directive/format]] directive for all
whole-source-file plugins, right?
-
Nothing seems to support
[[wiki-formatted_comments|wiki-formatted_comments_with_syntax_plugin]]
inside source files. Doing this probably means post-processing the
results of the highlighting engine, to find places where it's highlighted
comments, and then running them through the ikiwiki rendering pipeline.
This seems fairly doable with [[cpan Syntax::Highlight::Engine::Kate]],
at least.
-
The whole-file plugins tend to have a problem that things that look like
wikilinks in the source code get munged into links by ikiwiki, which can
have confusing results. Similar problem with preprocessor directives.
One approach that's also been requested for eg,
[[plugins/contrib/mediawiki]] is to allow controlling which linkification
types a page type can have on it.
The previous two points seem to be related. One thought: instead of
getting the source from the content parameter, the plugin could
re-load the page source. That would stop directives/links from
being processed in the source. As noted above, comments
could then be parsed for directives/links later.
Would it be worth adding a nodirectives option when registering
an htmlize hook that switches off directive and link processing before
generating the html for a page?
-
The whole-file plugins all get confused if there is a foo.c and a foo.h.
This is trivially fixable now by passing the keepextension option when
registering the htmlize hooks, though.
-
Whole-file plugins register a bunch of htmlize hooks. The wacky thing
about it is that, when creating a new page, you can then pick "c" or
"h" or "pl" etc from the dropdown that normally has "mdwn" etc in it.
Is this a bug, or a feature? (Even if a feature, plugins with many
extensions make the dropdown unusable.. One way to deal with that is have
a config setting that lists what extensions to offer highlighting for.
Most people won't need/want the dozens some engines support.)
-
The per page highlighters can't handle creating wiki pages from
"Makefile", or other files without a significant extension.
Not clear how to fix this, as ikiwiki is very oriented toward file
extensions. The workaround is to use a directive on a wiki page, pulling
in the Makefile.
I wonder how hard it would be to make a patch whereby a file with
no . in the name, and a name that matches a filetype, and where
that filetype was registered keepextension, then the file is just
chosen as the appropriate type. This would allow Makefile to
work.
like this:
diff --git a/IkiWiki.pm b/IkiWiki.pm
index 8d728c9..1bd46a9 100644
--- a/IkiWiki.pm
+++ b/IkiWiki.pm
@@ -618,6 +618,8 @@ sub pagetype ($) { #{{{
if ($page =~ /\.([^.]+)$/) {
return $1 if exists $hooks{htmlize}{$1};
+ } elsif ($hooks{htmlize}{$page}{keepextension}) {
+ return $page;
}
return;
} #}}}
format directive
Rather than making syntax highlight plugins have to provide a preprocessor
directive as well as handling whole source files, perhaps a generic format
directive could be used:
\[[!format pl """..."""]]
That would run the text through the pl htmlizer, from the syntax hightligh
plugin. OTOH, if "rst" were given, it would run the text through the rst
htmlizer. So, more generic, allows mixing different types of markup on one
page, as well as syntax highlighting. Does require specifying the type of
format, instead of allowing it to be guessed (which some syntax highlighters
can do). (This directive is now implemented..)
Hmm, this would also allow comments inside source files to have mdwn
embedded in them, without making the use of mdwn a special case, or needing
to postprocess the syntax highlighter output to find comments.
/* \[[!format mdwn """
This is a comment in my C file. You can use mdwn in here.
"""]] */
Note that this assumes that directives are expanded in source files.
|
