Fix a problem with the do Elixir keyword

[whatyouhide]

As of my last comment in #60, the do Elixir keyword didn't work with stuff like:

defmodule M do
  # no `end` here

Now it does; I tested this behavior also with def func do...end, case [...] do...end and some other constructs, everything seems to work and, more importantly, nothing seems to be broken.

[whatyouhide]

Here, I just replaced the whitespace match \s with the . wildcard.

[tpope]

See Ruby for an example of how to do this properly. I don't know Elixir but I'm guessing loosening the regex for all keywords will have unintended consequences.

I already reverted the previous attempt so build your submission on the latest so it will merge properly.

[tpope]

Also consider if this enables other keywords to be removed. I see if always takes a do, for example.

[whatyouhide]

Yep, I think this needs a little revision. I'll try to do it when I'll have some spare time. Thanks for now!

[rbishop]

I took a stab at this in another PR, but I think I've over thought it at first glance. Elixir actually has a much more consistent syntax than Ruby. All "blocks" in Elixir use the do word. So I think any line ending in do should complete with an end. The only exception are one-liner function definitions and one-liner if/do/else, which will have a do: (note the colon).

Could Elixir's end wise be as simple as auto-completing the end for any line ending in do and ignoring lines that end in do:?

[whatyouhide]

@rbishop not quite so. Here you can see keywords like receive/after aren't followed by a do.

[tpope]

Cited example has a receive do, and after does not have an end.

I think the proposed logic is solid. You might look at the sh support for inspiration.

[rbishop]

receive takes a do, but after does not. However, I can't think of a case where you will have an after outside of a receive.

Thanks @tpope. I'll have a look.

[whatyouhide]

I'm so sorry, yesterday I was in a hurry and read the Erlang example, not the Elixir ones 😭. Yes then, ends after every do should be fine.

[gwww]

My first time hacking a plugin, please be forgiving. Based on the discussion above by @rbishop this works for me. Not sure it is worthy of a merge as I only know enough Elixir to be dangerous.

autocmd FileType elixir
      \ let b:endwise_addition = 'end' |
      \ let b:endwise_words = 'do\s*$' |
      \ let b:endwise_syngroups = 'elixirKeyword'

[tpope]

@gwww closer would be

autocmd FileType elixir
      \ let b:endwise_addition = 'end' |
      \ let b:endwise_words = 'do' |
      \ let b:endwise_pattern = '\<do\ze\s*$' |
      \ let b:endwise_syngroups = 'elixirKeyword'

Try that a few days and if it works send a pull request.

[rbishop]

I'm not sure if this matters at all, but I noticed elixir-lang/vim-elixir has a lot of keywords defined: https://github.com/elixir-lang/vim-elixir/blob/7a0a1688601da4ae48e862e5840c832f04e63364/syntax/elixir.vim#L106-L120

Would this mean that endwise_syngroups would have to have most of them (or all of them?) listed?

[tpope]

Not if we're matching on do.

[rbishop]

Great point. I'll start using this and see if anything surprising happens. Thank you @tpope and @gwww