> I don’t think function parameters should be in ‘definition’. In fact, in my head, only the variable/function/class name of top-level constructs should be in ‘definition’.
As Dmitry suggested, I could move parameters to the new feature
variable-definition. This feature would be dedicated to highlighting
variables introduced into a scope. If we agree on that, it would be easy
to add to this patch.
On Dec 14, 2023, at 3:51 AM, Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev> wrote:
On 14/12/2023 07:54, Yuan Fu wrote:
I think the 'definition' feature is good for it (going by the name, since it's an implicit variable declaration), but it could be split off into a separate feature too.
As long as it’s not added to the definition feature, because, again, definition is at level 1 and I don’t want to keep level 1 minimal.
Maybe we can use local-definition, or something similar, to signify that this feature highlights scoped definitions.
But you think function parameters should be in 'definition'? They are also "scoped", I would say.
I don’t think function parameters should be in ‘definition’. In fact, in my head, only the variable/function/class name of top-level constructs should be in ‘definition’. Now I can see that the name ‘definition’ is too vague for my original intent, and most ts modes probably don’t share the same interpretation as I do...
Maybe we can allow definition to include more things and move it to level 3, and add a more restricted ’top-level-definition’ to level 1 to take it’s current role. WDYT?
Yuan