On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:10:41 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:34:54 +0100 Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 19/12/16 14:02, James McCoy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:55:50AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > >> Vim's currenr behaviour for syntax highlighting of shell scripts (with
> > >> #!/bin/sh and /bin/sh pointing to dash) is to mark command
> > >> substititions using the $(foo) construction as an error.
> > >
> > > Not that I can see.
> >
> > I've just tried this with a clean strecht system (no ~/.vim* present):
> > screenshot is attached. The $(foo) is clearly marked as an error there
> > (inverse colors in this color scheme), in the same way as real bashisms
> > like $'' and ${foo%bar}.
>
> Hello,
> I am another user bitten by this bug.
>
> Indeed, $(foo) does not appear to be a bashism, yet it's incorrectly
> marked as an error by vim, when found in a POSIX shell script.
>
> $'foo' is an actual bashism, so marking it as an error in a POSIX shell
> script is OK.
>
> On the other hand, substring processing (${FOO%bar}, ${FOO%%bar},
> ${FOO#bar}, ${FOO##bar}) is not a bashism: the man page for dash(1)
> states that it is supported and checkbashism does not complain...
>
> Hence, I think vim should not mark it as an error.
> Actually vim-runtime/2:7.4.488-7+deb8u2 (which is in jessie) correctly
> highlights substring processing, as shown in the first attached
> screenshot.
> Unfortunately, vim-runtime/2:8.0.0197-2 (which is in stretch) wrongly
> considers it as a syntax error in POSIX shell scripts, as shown in the
> second attached screenshot.
>
> The two screenshots were obtained (on jessie and stretch, respectively)
> with
>
> $ view -u NONE test.sh
>
> followed by
>
> :syn on
> :set bg=dark
>
>
> I am under the impression that this misbehavior is caused by the same
> bug reported by Bas.
> Dear Debian Vim Maintainers, would you like me to file a separate bug
> report for this?
> Please let me know.Once again, should I file a separate bug report? > > At any rate, please fix the bug(s) and/or forward the report(s) > upstream, as appropriate. What's the status of this bug report? Is there any progress in fixing it? Has it been forwarded upstream? Please let me know, thanks for your time! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpazaOdP5hG_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
