Josh Goebel

> and would need patterns to match things like matrix values, rotation, gradients, variables and all that. Those would indeed require separate modes and might be in-scope... we already match...

This is on-purpose to support all 4 CSS like grammars - where you cannot use syntactic elements (like `:`) to "guess" at what a thing is or isn't. One could...

> That case was mentioned in the docs. That you have a begin but not an end. Not sure I follow?

> Then I can't comment on the difficulty of that. It might be doable, but it's more complex - and we need the keyword lists anyways for auto-detection support. So...

> but it seems the attribute value is already being matched. We don't match "values" generically, we match known types of patterns/values like `32px`, `"blah"` (string), etc... take a custom...

Closing for lack of activity.

> and enables you to define a grammar specification for a language I think that is the hard part unless you plan to publish and maintain a huge repository of...

BNF spec... how deep does that get you? Are you really just lexing mostly or is it contextual enough to know you're inside a class, that this is a function...

> Take a look at the xml grammar which not only highlights xml properly but detects errors, duplicate attributes, duplicate ids and so on.. Yeah, but that's the easy stuff...

@foo123 Have you written a tokenizer/parser yourself for your grammar files? Or is all you have a bunch of conversation scripts to convert them into various grammar files recognized by...