Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: sh vs bash syntax coloring

Expand Messages
  • Leiking
    zsh. ... -- You received this message from the vim_use maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information,
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      zsh.

      2011/8/1 <ranousse@...>:
      >> You can put this option somewher in ~/.zshenv. Or, better, use zsh syntax for
      >> it:
      >>     !action=(xpdf -option) ; ... ; $action file
      >>     !action="xpdf -option" ; ... ; ${(z)action} file
      >>     !action="xpdf -option" ; ... ; $=action file
      >> in last case it is just one more character to type, in the first case you should
      >> type exactly the same number of characters, but two of them are different. These
      >> methods are not the same under all circumstances, but are the same here.
      >> I actually hate using bash for scripting: how do you like using
      >>     command "${array[@]}"
      >> where in zsh you type just
      >>     command $array
      >> . You have to also turn your mind on remembering that you must use quotes around
      >> any parameter if you want it to come in one piece and unmodified.
      >>
      >> I would likely choose zsh, perl, python for scripting but not bash.
      >
      > Ok thank you. I think this will be sufficient for my need.
      > Actually I didn't say bash was better than zsh, but I learnt sh syntax
      > first (not even bash, so no array at all it seems) and I don't know zsh
      > one. I only write small scripts ;-)
      > But I'm sure you're right.
      >
      > --
      > You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
      > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      >

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
    • Charles Campbell
      ... Sorry, that should ve been :help ft-sh-syntax . Regards, Chip Campbell -- You received this message from the vim_use maillist. Do not top-post! Type
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Thilo Six wrote:
        > Charles Campbell wrote the following on 01.08.2011 18:17
        >
        > Hello Charles,
        >
        > I think here is a typo:
        >
        > -- <snip> --
        >
        >
        >> Just to be complete, please read :help ft-syntax-sh (g:is_bash is
        >>
        > ^
        > `- s:ft-syntax-sh:ft-sh-syntax:
        > ':help ft-syntax-sh' returns E419 to me
        >
        Sorry, that should've been :help ft-sh-syntax .

        Regards,
        Chip Campbell

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      • Simon Nicolussi
        ... Not all shells support command substitution via $(...), even though it is required by POSIX. The /bin/sh in Solaris comes to mind. If you know you re using
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
          > That solves the problem since the OP wants bash syntax. I don't.
          > Is there a reason the constructs mentioned aren't included in "plain
          > 'sh'" mode?

          Not all shells support command substitution via $(...), even though it
          is required by POSIX. The /bin/sh in Solaris comes to mind. If you know
          you're using a compatible shell, you can specify:

          let g:is_posix = 1

          --
          Simon Nicolussi, <Simon.Nicolussi@...>
          http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~csag9583/
        • Benjamin R. Haskell
          ... [Just FYI:] The /bin/sh in Solaris 10 works fine. Wouldn t surprise me if 5.8 or prior didn t... ... Seems like this should be the default, but okay. I
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Simon Nicolussi wrote:

            > Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
            >> That solves the problem since the OP wants bash syntax. I don't. Is
            >> there a reason the constructs mentioned aren't included in "plain
            >> 'sh'" mode?
            >
            > Not all shells support command substitution via $(...), even though it
            > is required by POSIX. The /bin/sh in Solaris comes to mind.

            [Just FYI:] The /bin/sh in Solaris 10 works fine. Wouldn't surprise me
            if 5.8 or prior didn't...


            > If you know you're using a compatible shell, you can specify:
            >
            > let g:is_posix = 1

            Seems like this should be the default, but okay. I see it in the help
            now. Presuming this doesn't affect zsh-detection, I'll just add it and
            be done.

            --
            Thanks,
            Ben

            --
            You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          • Charles Campbell
            ... You ll also find in the help for ft-sh-syntax the sentence: No need to quote RFCs or market penetration statistics in error reports, please -- just select
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
              > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Simon Nicolussi wrote:
              >
              >> Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
              >>> That solves the problem since the OP wants bash syntax. I don't.
              >>> Is there a reason the constructs mentioned aren't included in "plain
              >>> 'sh'" mode?
              >>
              >> Not all shells support command substitution via $(...), even though
              >> it is required by POSIX. The /bin/sh in Solaris comes to mind.
              >
              > [Just FYI:] The /bin/sh in Solaris 10 works fine. Wouldn't surprise
              > me if 5.8 or prior didn't...
              >
              >
              >> If you know you're using a compatible shell, you can specify:
              >>
              >> let g:is_posix = 1
              >
              > Seems like this should be the default, but okay. I see it in the help
              > now. Presuming this doesn't affect zsh-detection, I'll just add it
              > and be done.
              >
              You'll also find in the help for ft-sh-syntax the sentence:

              No need to quote RFCs or market penetration statistics in error
              reports, please -- just select the default version of the sh your system
              uses in your <.vimrc>.

              That's there because posix/ksh users like to quote RFCs about how the
              default should be is_posix, and bash users like to quote market
              penetration statistics to insist that the default should be is_bash. I
              have the Bourne shell as default, not because I particularly like it the
              best or anything (I'm a is_kornshell user, myself), but to encourage
              users to make an informed choice.

              However, please try v117 of sh.vim; it now has some logic using
              resolve() to attempt to guess which shell is wanted. It won't be
              perfect; for example, what shell should be used with .profile? On my
              system, /bin/sh is linked to bash, and so the guessing logic will come
              up with setting g:is_bash to one; however, my login shell is ksh, and so
              .profile should be interpreted with g:is_kornshell = 1. The guess will
              only be made if no g:is_posix, g:is_kornshell, g:is_bash, or g:is_sh exists.

              You may get v117 from my website:
              http://mysite.verizon.net/astronaut/vim/index.html#vimlinks_syntax .

              Regards,
              Chip Campbell

              --
              You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.