--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Youngsters in charge of emacs vs. basic Bourne shell "for" statement |
|
Date: |
Mon, 03 May 2021 22:48:16 +0800 |
for i do
true
done
: This line and the whole rest of the program misindented because emacs
shallow knowlege of shell grammar.
: Test with TAB. Emacs only knows about:
for i
do
true
done
: If this was python, well, you would have to have the language change to
accomidate emacs.
: Also if we are colaborating on a big project we cannot just rip up line
of other peoples code so
: they are not misindeted for only us.
: Yes, some emacs programmers do not know shell grammar and just assume...
indeed the word "do" on the
: first line is not even in a different color. But the word in right here
in this line is! Three times!
: Hmmm, [including this part of] the sh language is, maybe 50 years
: old. Not something checkbashisms --extra --force --posix has an issue
with. It is part
: of sh, bash, dash, ksh, ...
: I.e., not something invented before emacs...
: What could be even older? Well, sh must have been written in C...
: Yes, I reported this before. But it was closed by programmers who
: do not know basic Bourne shell "for" statement grammar.
: emacs-version "27.1"
Indeed, I was just reading in RISKS Digest,
> https://www.wired.com/story/ai-latest-trick-writing-computer-code/
> What fun -- being second-guessed in real time by software that doesn't
> understand my code...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#2910: 23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug |
|
Date: |
Sat, 14 Oct 2023 11:01:40 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
>> I haven't found problems, but I'm suspicious because it seems too easy.
> Welcome to the world of Emacs, where "if it's easy it must be right".
BTW, pushed to `master`, thank you.
Stefan
--- End Message ---