On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 22:15, Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:12:10AM +1000, David wrote:
> > Maybe you would enjoy answering this question then? > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-bash/2019-05/msg00000.html > > > > Because apparently no-one else has, hehe :D > > You didn't like my answer? I did. I encourage people to read everything you write on shells. Your dedication to promoting good practice is astounding. I apologise for the slow reply, but at the moment I have insufficient time to keep up with messages here, especially ones that run off track. I linked to that thread because I thought it (including your answer) was a useful addition to the discussion in this one. I noticed my message later described as a "shot across the bows". That phrase as I understand it describes a violent threat of physical harm intended to create fear that will cause another party to change their behaviour. On the contrary. I was attempting to add information and context in a friendly and light-hearted manner (there was a "Hi", a "hehe" and a ":D") but it seems that wasn't enough to make the intention clear. > (The OP clarified in a subsequent post that (s)he is trying to implement > syntax highlighting for some kind of text editor. (S)he wants to support > the behavior of this ridiculous code just in case some foolish end > user writes it. (S)he's not actually writing a script. For people who > *are* actually writing scripts, the solution is exactly as I described.) I know. I am grateful for his previous work to provide syntax highlighting. Although lately I am starting to prefer vim, depending on the task. The code there is ridiculous, except as an example for a parsing question which I think was its purpose. I thank KHMan for his completely unselfish effort to write editor code that tries to correctly deal with whatever crap other people might throw into it. I suppose a solution could for unparseable code to remain uncoloured. It can be very distracting when syntax highlighting is incorrect.