@MAPJe71
It seems you have improved your function list parsers. Can you please upload your functionList.xml here or make a PR for it?

A bit off-topic here ;) but here's link to my functionList.xml.

thanks

@MAPJe71 does your functionList.xml is compatible with Notepad++ official release completely?

@donho
All parsers should be compatible. Unfortunately most of the changed official-release/stock parsers appear not to be functional. At the time they were changed I used Scintilla 3.56 with Boost 1.58 for use with my FunctionList patch. More recent changes to the stock parsers (see date tags in file) are done with official release Notepad++.
Unless you want a sh!t load of complaints about FunctionList do NOT USE my functionList.xml AS IS. ;)

Unless you want a sh!t load of complaints about FunctionList do NOT USE my functionList.xml AS IS. ;)

Sorry, I have problem to understand double nagative. Are you telling me that your function list is better than current one?

I advise you NOT to use my functionList.xml as is.

Some parsers are improved IMO e.g. Batch / Command Shell, INI Section and Python;
Some are added and optimized for my use e.g. XML Function List
Some are possibly improved (possibly because I did not get a response yet for validation) e.g. #1919;
Some are added to be able to help others e.g. #2045, Community #9725, Community #12126;
Some are optimized for my SourceForge #548 patch and do not work correctly without it i.e. not functional;

I do not use all the parsers myself, the ones I do use regularly function of course ;) (i.e. Batch / Command Shell, INI Section, Python and XML Function List).

@MAPJe71 Thank you for the elaboration.
In this case, could you do a PR for the parsers that we are sure they are better than current (with the header in comment which gives the explicite explanation)?

Regarding your SF's PR, I have checked it - the reason that the PR was not accepted is the dificulty of its integretion - it was kind of rewritten and hard to tell what is fixed/enhancend.
I believe some enhancements have been done in your patch. What I want to make sure is there'll be no regression. If you could do some effort to do PR again (without reformatting and change of code structure) , I'll check it again (and sorry for the inconvenience).

@donho

... do a PR for the parsers ...

Sure no problem.
Do you mean an explanation for the improvements or the regular expressions or both?

Regarding SF's PR ...

Yep, I figured that would have been the case. There's a contributing guideline now ;)
I will create a separate PR for this and include the optimized parsers which dependent on this patch (with explanatory comment, before/after comparison)

Do you mean an explanation for the improvements or the regular expressions or both?

Both. The improvements which work only for the current Notepad++ of course.

I will create a separate PR for this and include the optimized parsers which dependent on this patch (with explanatory comment, before/after comparison

Thank you very much.