[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
** Changed in: gtksourceview Importance: Unknown => Medium -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
if upstream reopen the bug we'll do the same otherwise this should remain as Won't Fix, thanks. ** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
As mentioned, contrary to WONTFIX comments this has shown to be an actual problem and break sh code. ** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu) Status: Won't Fix => Confirmed -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
> 'I don't think it's a real problem' Both TerryG and I have mentioned and shown that bash scripts do not run on sh. > ' "Simple fix" above is not acceptable, there must be a language with id "sh". ' I'm not sure why you say there must be one. You don't have a highlighter for sh now. -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
wontfixing this one also, thanks. ** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged => Won't Fix -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
** Changed in: gtksourceview Status: New => Won't Fix -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
We are cheating here, true, we say "sh" when it's really "bash". But I don't think it's a real problem, so I tend to close the upstream bug with WONTFIX. It's similar to highlighting TRUE and FALSE in C code - these aren't standard identifiers, yet they are common enough and we highlight them. "Simple fix" above is not acceptable, there must be a language with id "sh". "Extended fix" is possible but wrong. If there is sh.lang, then it will be used for all sh-like scripts, including bash scripts (at least with our advanced unix technologies). All in all, it's a small issue without a small fix. -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
** Changed in: gtksourceview Status: Unknown => New -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
The bug has been reported to the developers of the software. You can track it and make comments here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=521195 ** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu) Sourcepackagename: gedit => gtksourceview2 ** Changed in: gtksourceview2 (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Triaged ** Also affects: gtksourceview via http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=521195 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
bash_arrays.sh attached. ** Attachment added: "bash_arrays.sh" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12344712/bash_arrays.sh ** Changed in: gedit (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Confirmed -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
Here's a cheesy example from Advanced Bash Scripting Guide Gedit hightlights both the same even though the array syntax is illegal in normal Bourne shell (sh) programming. Here are the results: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Projects$ ./bash_arrays.sh area[11] = 23 area[13] = 37 Contents of area[51] are UFOs. area[43] = (area[43] unassigned) area[5] = area[11] + area[13] area[5] = 60 expr: non-numeric argument area[6] = area[11] + area[51] area[6] = area2[0] = zero area2[1] = one area3[17] = seventeen area3[24] = twenty-four [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Projects$ ./sh_arrays.sh ./sh_arrays.sh: 4: area[11]=23: not found ./sh_arrays.sh: 5: area[13]=37: not found ./sh_arrays.sh: 6: area[51]=UFOs: not found area[11] = ./sh_arrays.sh: 17: Syntax error: Bad substitution ** Attachment added: "sh_arrays.sh" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12344708/sh_arrays.sh -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
Thank you for your bug. Could you attach an example to the bug? ** Changed in: gedit (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Low Assignee: (unassigned) => Ubuntu Desktop Bugs (desktop-bugs) Status: Confirmed => Incomplete -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
Thanks for the submission. You made me a Bourne Again believer. I actually had to test it myself with some shell scripts. I'm using gutsy with gedit 2.20.3. Don't know what's in Hardy. Marked as Confirmed. ** Changed in: gedit (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 196785] Re: 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12280926/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: "ProcMaps.txt" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12280927/ProcMaps.txt ** Attachment added: "ProcStatus.txt" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12280928/ProcStatus.txt -- 'sh' syntax highlighting actually for bash, and uses syntax invalid for Bourne shell https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/196785 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
