Re: [Github-comments] [geany/geany] Enhance detection of sh functions (#662)
@b4n I interpret that ctags developers prefer everyone to be happy. See https://github.com/universal-ctags/ctags/issues/1261#issuecomment-270820933. Conflicts among syntaxes would have to be ignored for that sake. I'll just choose not to oppose. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/662#issuecomment-381313471
Re: [Github-comments] [geany/geany] Enhance detection of sh functions (#662)
@konsolebox Actually Universal-CTags changed to have the extended syntax as default: universal-ctags/ctags@ec5981f75be07ed827000d06a3d8cc7b8c70ea8d It could be interesting to get your opinion there given the thought you put into it, and possible specific tests etc. If it's not a good idea because it conflicts with other things, it might be a good idea to review it there. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/662#issuecomment-375328045
Re: [Github-comments] [geany/geany] Enhance detection of sh functions (#662)
Sorry guys I made a mistake here. I was wrong about the idea that only the
`function` keyword allows other characters besides `[[:alnum:]_]`. The classic
syntax allows it as well. The only significant difference is that the classic
syntax conflicts with `extglob`, whereas the `function` keyword does not. When
using a syntax like `is_a_number?(){ [[ $1 == +([[:digit:]]) ]]; }`, bash
reports `syntax error near unexpected token '}'`. But it doesn't happen when
`extglob` is disabled. I probably misinterpreted it as an exception within the
classic syntax itself. I never created specially-named functions other than
those having the `[X.]f?` or `[X.]f!` format.
Anyway, I still would suggest to have this solution applied. The `function`
keyword allows the difference between the special syntax of bash and the
classic or POSIX syntax distinguishable. I also don't think people who write
POSIX scripts would want to have their function names also validated with
special characters which are only recognized in Bash. So generalizing would be
bad idea.
P.S. The classic syntax also conflicts with the assignment syntax, but I don't
think anyone would want to use the `=` character for its high ambiguity risk,
so it's not really a significant argument to use here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/662#issuecomment-375234385
Re: [Github-comments] [geany/geany] Enhance detection of sh functions (#662)
@LarsGit223 Not yet, apparently we didn't import the change back in Geany yet -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/662#issuecomment-375093482
Re: [Github-comments] [geany/geany] Enhance detection of sh functions (#662)
@b4n: I saw your change to universal-ctags has been merged a long time ago. Can this be closed then? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/662#issuecomment-375079657
