Discussion/Suggestion: any way to "tweak" this kind of highlight?

[Rmano]

This is really not an issue, but I think there is no "Discussion" for vimtex...

Consider the snippet, in the preamble:

\documentclass{article}
\newcommand{\shunt}{\mathop{/\!/}}
\NewDocumentCommand{\varappend}{m o m}{%
        \IfNoValueTF{#2}{#1_{\textup{#3}}}{#1_{#2_{\scriptstyle\textup{#3}}}}%
    }
\NewDocumentCommand{\varmin}{m o}{\varappend{#1}[#2]{mín}}
\NewDocumentCommand{\varmax}{m o}{\varappend{#1}[#2]{máx}}
\begin{document}
what $\varappend{V}[CE]{rms}$ 
\end{document}

Which is highlighted like this: (I have catppuccin-latte colorscheme, with a special hl on error):

I understand that the _ underscores are marked as an error because nobody knows that the macro is supposed to be used in math mode. Yes, I can wrap it in \ensuremath{}, but suppose I prefer not to do that... is there any option to avoid that? Some kind of magic comment?

(The spellchecker errors in argument are another nuisance, but not related to vimtex, although I'd be grateful for suggestions...)

System info:
  OS: Manjaro Linux
  Vim version: NVIM v0.10.2
  Has clientserver: true
  Servername: /home/romano/.cache/nvim/server-desktop_1.pipe

VimTeX project: lulla
  base: lulla.tex
  root: /home/romano/tmp
  tex: /home/romano/tmp/lulla.tex
  main parser: current file verified
  document class: article
  packages: epstopdf-base graphics graphicx keyval pgf pgfcomp-version-0-65 pgfcomp-version-1-18 pgfcore pgffor pgfkeys pgfmath pgfplots pgfrcs pgfsys tikz trig xcolor
  compiler: latexmk
    engine: -pdf
    options:
      -verbose
      -file-line-error
      -synctex=1
      -interaction=nonstopmode
    callback: 1
    continuous: 1
    executable: latexmk
    job: 
      jobid: 16
      output: /tmp/nvim.romano/oV9cia/0
      cmd: max_print_line=2000 latexmk -verbose -file-line-error -synctex=1 -interaction=nonstopmode  -pdf -pvc -pvctimeout- -view=none -e '$compiling_cmd = ($compiling_cmd ? $compiling_cmd . " ; " : "") . "echo vimtex_compiler_callback_compiling"' -e '$success_cmd = ($success_cmd ? $success_cmd . " ; " : "") . "echo vimtex_compiler_callback_success"' -e '$failure_cmd = ($failure_cmd ? $failure_cmd . " ; " : "") . "echo vimtex_compiler_callback_failure"' 'lulla.tex'
      pid: 11340
  viewer: General
    job: 
      pid: -
      cmd: okular '/home/romano/tmp/lulla.pdf'
  qf method: LaTeX logfile

[lervag]

This is really not an issue, but I think there is no "Discussion" for vimtex...

😅

Consider the snippet, in the preamble: …

Which is highlighted like this: (I have catppuccin-latte colorscheme, with a special hl on error): …

I understand that the _ underscores are marked as an error because nobody knows that the macro is supposed to be used in math mode. Yes, I can wrap it in \ensuremath{}, but suppose I prefer not to do that... is there any option to avoid that? Some kind of magic comment?

Good question. I actually avoided the error highlighting until someone asked for it in #2960.

To be honest, I don't immediately have a good suggestion here other than \ensuremath. I'm curious to hear why you would prefer to avoid it?

(The spellchecker errors in argument are another nuisance, but not related to vimtex, although I'd be grateful for suggestions...)

You could use the g:vimtex_syntax_custom_cmds to add support for your varappend command. Something like this:

let g:vimtex_syntax_custom_cmds = [
      \ {
      \   'name': 'varappend',
      \   'mathmode': 1,
      \   'arggreedy': 1,
      \   'argspell': 0,
      \ },
      \]

Although, I'm not 100% sure if it will work in your case since you have the optional argument after the first argument. So, you may need something more advanced here. Still, it's not too hard to make a custom rule that should work if the above is not enough.

[Rmano]

Hmmm.... only for dark mode users 😂 ?

Anyway, in this case, \ensuremath can be useful, but in general, adding an \ifmath branch just to fix syntax highlight doesn't sound... right. Anyway, not a big problem, just a Sunday afternoon thought... ;-)

[clason]

but I think there is no "Discussion" for vimtex...

Only for you, since you are the owner -- we plebs can't see it since it's not enabled in the settings.

[lervag]

but I think there is no "Discussion" for vimtex...

Only for you, since you are the owner -- we plebs can't see it since it's not enabled in the settings.

That was strange. The Discussion feature was activated, but it seems I needed to actually start a discussion to make it available to others. I believe it should be available now?

[clason]

GitHub works in mysterious ways... Now I see them!

[lervag]

Anyway, in this case, \ensuremath can be useful, but in general, adding an \ifmath branch just to fix syntax highlight doesn't sound...

I think you know more about LaTeX and TeX than me. You may be right here, of course; I wouldn't really know. I think I would have carelessly and cluelessly added the \ensuremath without worrying (and even knowing) about the \ifmath thing 😅.

But ok, perhaps it would make sense to add a possibility to enter math mode by comment? Something like %mathzone start and %mathzone end?

[Rmano]

But ok, perhaps it would make sense to add a possibility to enter math mode by comment? Something like %mathzone start and %mathzone end?

If it is not a burden maintaining it, it would be very nice to have them. (Hey, thanks for the discussions! Maybe you can move this issue to a discussion? You should have something like this:

on the right-side... ;-)

[lervag]

I've added an initial version now, please test it and let me know how it works.

322304c

I noticed that the automatic linking between commits and discussions does not work the same as for links and PRs. That's a shame, and I think perhaps the feature requests and ideas may be better discussed as issues. Not sure yet, though.

[Rmano]

It works!... although as a nitpicking comment... wouldn't it be better to use start-stop or begin-end?

[lervag]

Yes, I agree. But not sure which is better: start / stop or begin / end? Opinions? If not, I'll just choose one of them.

[Rmano]

In my opinion start/stop is more ConTeXish, and begin/end more LaTeXish...

Another small thing is that sometime In have the same problem with underscores marked as errors in tikz code in macros... A version of magic comments that simply disable the error on underscores would be nice too (I mean, without activating math mode).

[lervag]

Ok, I've changed to begin/end. Regarding the other idea: can you open a quick and short feature request about that with a small sample LaTeX code with it?