Nice! I’m sure this will be useful.

It can integrate with earmark with no code changes on the earmark side (and trivial changes on makeup itself). This could probably be used in ex_docs for better syntax highlighting of elixir code (the current syntax highlighting isn’t exactly great).

But I’d need to write a lexer for iex sessions so that doctests would render fine (the current elixir lexer doesn’t work very well for doctests in some situations.

@tmbb:

1. Is it possible to integrate it with Atom editor?
2. Can we color every code part? For example I don’t found macro calls (there is only definition). I would like to color in similar tones parts like:
   def vs defp
defmacro vs defmacrop
function_call vs macro_call
   At least in some of my libraries I use macros to generate modules and/or functions and I would like to see easy function_call vs macro_call especially after bigger time break between developing code.
3. Can I add blinking red background color to mark part of code that does not compiles?
4. Overwiev button on demo page does not work - 404 error page
5. Integration with earmark and iex would be awesome!
   Currently I have different colors in atom and different colors in console, so making them same would be really good point.

Let me know if you need a help with ex_doc. I was need to know how at least some parts works in it, so I look at code deeper and in case you want to develop fork then I could help. Maybe we could make ex_doc much more configurable starting from choose tool for syntax highlighting.

Probably, since atom uses HTML and CSS… But makeup is optimized for offline use, not for interactive editing. And the overhead of communicating with Atom is probably intolerable. The use case for this is to display code on webpages and such.

Assuming you want to color the words def, defp, etc., yes. I mean, not currently, but I can easily add an option in which you pass a map of identifiers to colors (%{"def" => "red", "defp" => "pink", ...}). It won’t play well with styles (you need to set colors that play well with the style), but it’s possible. In fact, Pygments styles have some serious limitations, but they were readily available so I used them. Maybe I’ll overhaul the whole thing.

No out of the box. Makeup can put pretty colors on your code, but it operates on lexical analysis only. what you want need a deep knowledge about your code.

It can be done pretty easily with the new elixir debug tools, though. I will certainly integrate with it so that you can draw distinctions between functions and mactos, and even have hyperlinks from the function call to its definition. This eas the whole reason for me to want a tool in pure elixir, otherwise I’d just use Python

But that’s still in the future (I have the architecture more or less sketched out in my head, but implementing it might take a while).

Again, not possible out of the box. Unlike the feature above, this is not on the roadmap. The focus is on rendering code that’s already been tested and compiles. Again, makeup os veeery stupid and obly cares about the surface details of your code [insert joke about makeup here]

Thanks! This button wasn’t even meant to exist. The HTML is a gutted version of the webpage of a PHP project, and I’ve forgotten to remove this button. I’ll remove it tonight.

I’ve never mentioned integration with iex. It’s a completely different scope! Adding syntax highlighting to iex is something different (even thiugh makeup might be able to help with that someday).

What I said is that I wanted to have a way of highlighting doctests, which are written as if they were an iex session, including the iex prompt. My elixir lexer won’t deal well with that.

This is a problem if this is meant to integrate with ex_docs.

ex_doc can already choose the markdown implementarion, and I think Ican easily create a dummy “markdown implementation” which is just earmark configured to use makeup as a code rendering function (that’s an option you can set). The only thing that would require changin ex_docs source is adding makeup’s stylesheet. I don’t think a full fork is needed… But any help is welcome!