Re: [bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Leonard den Ottolander wrote: Hi Roland, On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 08:28, Roland Illig wrote: Just because all other directories have their own ChangeLog, too. Don't you like it? O yes, I do actually. Only I was a bit surprised the same change log entries ended up in src/ChangeLog for HEAD. I

Re: [bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Hi Roland, On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 08:28, Roland Illig wrote: > Just because all other directories have their own ChangeLog, too. > > Don't you like it? O yes, I do actually. Only I was a bit surprised the same change log entries ended up in src/ChangeLog for HEAD. I didn't quite understand this d

Re: [bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Hello Roland, On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 11:52, Roland Illig wrote: > I committed the change for Python and extended it to also match """\0""" and > """\12""". I see you also committed these fixes to PRE. Thanks. But would you care to explain why you added Changelog entries for this in src/Changelog i

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #7872 (project mc): Roland, thanks for fixing the removal of @PERL@ and adding a few more makefile interpreters in the file matches. Could you please commit these fixes to PRE as well? As long as it is uncertain from which branch we will eventually see a release I'd li

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Update of bug #7872 (project mc): Status:None => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed Release: 4.6.0 => current (CVS or snapshot) Platform Version:

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #7872 (project mc): I committed a patch to the syntax/Syntax file that matches this: file ..\*\\.(py|PY)$ Python\sProgram ^#!.\*[\s/]python So the first line only has to contain " python" (for /usr/bin/env) or "/python" (for regular interpreters). __

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #7872 (project mc): I just don't feel like actually verifying this. Duh. ___ Reply to this item at: ___

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #7872 (project mc): i'd prefer to have the exact match as a simple correctness check. oh, well. """ is just the same as ", except that you can embed physical newlines in this type of string. actually reading the BNF in the page i linked to would have revealed that (as i

Re: [bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Hi Pavel, On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 22:43, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 20:08 +, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > Follow-up Comment #7, bug #7872 (project mc): > > > > My question is "why do we need the extra code to match '/usr/bin/env' if all > > we need to match is 'perl'?" It

Re: [bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 20:08 +, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Follow-up Comment #7, bug #7872 (project mc): > > My question is "why do we need the extra code to match '/usr/bin/env' if all > we need to match is 'perl'?" It seems redundant. Like trying to match > '/usr/bin/perl', '/usr/local/b

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #7872 (project mc): My question is "why do we need the extra code to match '/usr/bin/env' if all we need to match is 'perl'?" It seems redundant. Like trying to match '/usr/bin/perl', '/usr/local/bin/perl' etc. instead of just 'perl'. Regarding the syntax additions: As

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #7872 (project mc): > [...] We could just as well start matching all possible paths to the binaries. > i can't claim i'd understand that paragraph. :} > [...] If you could comment on the usefulness [...] > i'm can't claim to be a python wiz, either. http://docs.python.o

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #7872 (project mc): The use of matching /usr/bin/env seems rather pointless if you are already matching the interpreter on the first line. We could just as well start matching all possible paths to the binaries. Regarding the syntax additions, I don't do python yet. If

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #7872 (project mc): For the Syntax.diff patch, I suggest that we only check for ^#!.\*/perl This is much easier to read. Roland ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #7872 (project mc): err, i misread it. in fact, this is very similar to what i have submitted some time ago (and somehow i thought it was already committed ... which is sort of like believing in santa claus ;). it's only pointless to look for env somewhere else than in /

[bug #7872>] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #7872> (project mc): > What's the point of the "(env\s)?" change? > pointless, imo. env located in any other directory is entirely against the idea of using it in the first place ... > And isn't 'context """ """' a comment? > nope. read the lang spec. :-P

[bug #7872] Suggested changes in Python syntax bindings

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #7872 (project mc): What's the point of the "(env\s)?" change? And isn't 'context """ """' a comment? Don't you mean to see changes to the 'context " "'? Please be so kind to provide a patch (diff -up) so it is more clear what you do want to see changed. _