• So how does one write actual comments? With 'comment (string)'?

@joshgoebel
I wrote up an explanation of what are comments in Clojure and what may be used as comments. At the end of this comment, you can find examples how others render Clojure.

I may submit more PRs for the Clojure syntax as there are still things that are highlighted not quite right.

For Reference:
You can find a reference of the Clojure reader here: https://clojure.org/reference/reader
And "special symbols" here: https://clojure.org/guides/weird_characters

; line comments

Clojure has line comments starting with ;, this is a special form like in any other language.
This is handled here:

It is common practice to use multiple ; to signal hierarchy.
; for margin inline comments
;; for line comments
;;; for top-level comments

;;; Here is a function:
(defn square 
  "This is a docstring."
  [x]
  ;; Now we will square x.
  (* x x)) ; Clojure uses prefix notation.

(comment) Marco

Then there is the (comment) macro, that just ignores the body and yields' nil. It is nothing special really. What's important though is that code inside the comment macro is still code and has to be valid Clojure code!

(comment
  (defn 2abc [])) ; this will fail! Functions must not start with a number.
  
(comment (comment (comment "Why not?")))

;; Since it is nothing special, we could redefine it. 
(defn comment [str]
  (println str))  
  
;; This is rarely used in the wild, but some libraries overwrite core functions.
(ns html)
(defn comment [body] 
  (str "<!-- " body " -->")
  
(ns my-namespace)
(html/comment "my comment")
; => <!-- my comment -->

#_ Discard

Additionally, there is a reader macro, #_ ignores the following form completely. It is used to comment out code.

#_(comment
       (defn 2abc [])) ; this won't fail, the code is skipped while reading the file.

#_"You can skip any form" ; not only list forms.
#_42

;; You have no power here! #_(some-code 1 2 3)

(merge 
  {"a" 1}
  #_{"b" 2
     "c" 3}
  {"d" 4})
;; => {"a" 1, "d" 4}

How do others render Clojure?

; I am a comment

(+ 1 2 3) ; I am a comment behind a form

(defn square [x] (* x x))
; (comment) is mostly used for code that the dev wants to be evaluated "by hand"
; in a REPL, but not automatically. It has to be valid clojure code!
(comment
  ;; sanity check my code
  (= 9 (square 3)))
  
; #_ ignores the next form. This is used to comment out code during development.
#_(print "I will be skipped while reading")

; #_ is stackable, useful for maps.
{"a" 1
 #_#_"b" 2}

This is how Cursive, the Clojure plugin for IntelliJ, renders the text:

Calva, the VSCode plugin for Clojure, renders the skipped (#_) not like a comment, but in a lighter colour.

@joshgoebel BTW, is there a way to overrule scopes?

Yesterday I experimented with highlighting everything as comment, when using (comment).
The mode should end on a matching bracket, for this I would use the other modes for normal Clojure code. But these have their own scope.

(comment
  (+ 1 2 3))

Would result in:

<span class="hljs-comment">
  (comment 
    (<span class="hljs-name">+</span> <span class="hljs-number">1</span> <span class="hljs-number">2</span> <span class="hljs-number">3</span>))
</span>

The only way I saw to overcome this is having a clone of all modes without the scopes for exclusive use in the comment mode.

The only way I saw to overcome this is having a clone of all modes without the scopes for exclusive use in the comment mode.

Not exactly. If your trying to not highlight them then you ONLY need modes to match things that could interfere with bracket counting... you don't need ALL the modes... so in many languages this would mean you'd need to match strings (unscoped) to avoid things like "I'm a string ) not a block close"... but from your other highlighting example it looks like usually these just get highlighted as normal.

I wonder if something like hljs.COMMENT('comment\\b(?!-)', ''), might not be better?

So singular comments are still highlighted... (which I personally like)... but we avoid false positives... thoughts?

I experimented with highlighting everything as comment, when using (comment).

I'd also be willing to try this if it was reliable and you wanted to finish it up.

One could handle #_( the same way - as Cursive does - though nested #_ might be harder.

In my opinion, (comment (+ 1 2 3)) should either be highlighted all grey or not at all, and looking at the examples not at all is preferred. I think just making the symbol grey looks out of place.

I can open an issue with other things I noticed off with Clojure highlighting.

You are right regarding ).
I think ) could only appear on its own in:

• a string ")"
• a character \)
• a comment ;)

Regarding #_
It doesn't have to be followed by (.
I can be followed by any valid form, with white spaces and line comments in between.

#_1
#_                            1  ; spaces between
#_ ,,,,,,,,,,  ; commas are pruely decorative and treated as whitespace
1]

and looking at the examples not at all is preferred

Ok, we can try that for now. That would put this PR back on track. :)

Regarding #_ It doesn't have to be followed by (.

Yes I realized, but those other cases may be difficult (or impossible) to deal with properly as it is not our goal to parse languages (at other than a surface level)... trying to do so very quickly leads to grammars that are difficult or impossible to maintain.