Re: [PATCH take 3 0/4] color-words improvements

Santi Béjar [off-list ref] writes:

It may be ok and logical, but for me it is not what I want. Mmaybe I
don't really undestand what I want or is a crazy idea but here it is
anyway:

Take a simple case with this two lines :

matrix[a,b,c]
matrix{d,b,c}

there is no space so the standard color-words does not help to
visualize that matrix, the b and c are not changed.

What I currently do is to add some spaces:

matrix[ a, b, c ]
matrix{ d, b, c }

then the color-words at least says that "b, c" is unchanged.

What I would like is that --color-words would act as adding this
spaces automatically (and even one after "matrix").

Or another way to think it could be:

a) primary words are those with alphanumerics (or a regex)
b) secondary "words" are the other non-whitespaces characters (in this
case "[]{} and ,"
c) whitespaces are cruft.

Dscho and Thomas discussed and designed a way to mark "words look like
this" (and anything that are not words are crufts), and Dscho further
argues that it is Ok to discard crufts (which I think is fine).

What you seem to want in this example is "there is no cruft other than
whitespace, but there are different kinds of words".  I do not think it is
incompatible with the way crufts are discarded, but it may be incompatible
with the way how words are identified.

I would expect something like:

	[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[^ a-zA-Z0-9]+

should define your "two kinds of words".  That is, a run of alnums is a
word, and a run of non-alnums is a word, but "matrix[a" is not a word (it
is a sequence of three words "matrix", "[" and "a").