Editor parser fails to recognise `\begin` and `\end` standalone commands within macro definition about texify-idea HOT 7 OPEN

Thanks for reporting this! I happened to have fixed this already for \newcommand in #3482 available in 0.9.5-alpha.7 https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/9473-texify-idea/edit/versions/alpha

However, that does not work for \def\startList{\begin{itemize}} and it is not easy to fix. Do you have any particular reason why you use \def instead of something like \newcommand{\startList}{\begin{itemize} \item First item}?

from texify-idea.

from texify-idea.

I can understand, but unfortunately TeXiFy will never be able to parse all valid LaTeX, because then the parser would take just as much time as actual compilation, which would make the plugin unusable. Therefore, we have decided to try and parse as much well-written LaTeX as possible, thus encouraging users to avoid obsolete or discouraged use of LaTeX.
Therefore, any real-life examples where \def should be used e.g. because \newcommand would not work are very much appreciated.
In general, any real-life examples where the TeXiFy parser does not work are appreciated because in some cases it is still possible to support certain syntax.
I don't know anything about the Emacs parser, so not sure if they have a better approach.

from texify-idea.

the parser would take just as much time as actual compilation, which would make the plugin unusable

This is interesting to know. I wonder why LaTeX parsing would be so harder to do in real(ish) time than, say, Java, for which "compiler-perfect", in-editor/IDE, real-time parser have existed (and I have used) for decades. Anyway, I appreciate that the focus of your effort may be directed on functionality, and accuracy in the general case takes lower priority.

Also I admit I haven't used LaTeX in a while, but I had never heard before about \def not being considered "well-written LaTeX". Is there an official guide, deprecation list of sorts I could have a look at?

from texify-idea.

Yes, that is indeed a very interesting topic. I'm not sure what Knuth had in mind, but probably not an IDE with lexer and EBNF parser. I think this explains it well: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/4201/is-there-a-bnf-grammar-of-the-tex-language

Not as far as I know, so that's why we try to help users with TeXiFy inspections: https://hannah-sten.github.io/TeXiFy-IDEA/discouraged-or-obsolete-code.html mostly based on answers like these: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/658/98850

from texify-idea.