Switch out JSON highlighter

[Nixinova]

Description

JSON files are currently quite difficult to read, as keys and strings are all coloured the same:

It would be much easier to read JSON files if the keys were coloured differently:

This changes the JSON grammar to one that highlights keys separately from strings, making JSON files must easier to read.

Checklist

• I am changing the source of a syntax highlighting grammar
  • Old: source, lightshow
  • New: source, lightshow
• I am updating a grammar submodule

Languages affected

• Ecere Projects
• JSON
• (not) Jupyter Notebook
• Max

[Nixinova]

Getting a contentless error

[lildude]

Getting a contentless error

No you're not. Here's your error: https://github.com/github/linguist/pull/5507/checks?check_run_id=3271010550#step:4:704

[lildude]

🤔 I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. Thoughts @Alhadis as you're more experienced with writing grammars.

What's more, peeps aren't going to notice when using light mode as you can barely tell the difference between the two when viewing on lightshow

[Nixinova]

I'm not sure this is the right thing to do.

People really don't like the current syntax highlighting and neither do I. I can try to find a better scope name though if they look too identical on light mode (though who uses that ^{slight /s}).

[Alhadis]

What's more, peeps aren't going to notice when using light mode

It might be because I'm colour-blind, but I don't see much difference in the dark-mode highlighting, either.

Regarding the grammar, there's a tonne of mistakes and missing syntax that are too numerous to list individually, so I've sent you a pull-request instead.

(though who uses that ^{slight /s}).

I do. 😜

[lildude]

🤔 this appears to have a wider ranging effect as other languages use the JSON grammar. How do your changes affect those?

Could you add before and after links for each in the OP for easy comparison.

[Nixinova]

How do your changes affect those?

Well if they're using the JSON grammar then they're normal json and should be fine.

[Nixinova]

Ecere Projects however (doesn't have a sample here) & isn't json anyway though so unsure why it has the tm_scope (and why it's a language in the first place)...

[Alhadis]

Well if they're using the JSON grammar then they're normal json and should be fine.

That's not entirely true: grammars can import specific rules from other grammars using the form

include: "source.json#rule-name"

… which is something I liberally abuse the shit out of with my etc "grammar", e.g.:

include: "etc#str"

[lildude]

• (not) Jupyter Notebook

Not not Jupyter Notebook 😁. The underlying raw source looks like JSON to me. It looks good with your grammar, as do the others affected.

Ecere Projects however (doesn't have a sample here) & isn't json anyway though so unsure why it has the tm_scope (and why it's a language in the first place)...

I can't answer why it's a language, but from a quick search of projects with .ejp extensions, they do mostly appear to be JSON-like. They also look good with your grammar too. You seemed to have struck lucky with your find.

That's not entirely true: grammars can import specific rules from other grammars using the form

include: "source.json#rule-name"

Looks like none of the grammars we're using is doing this for the JSON grammar 🎉 .

So all in, I think we're good to switch out the JSON grammar.