Jonathan Smith wrote:
> sorry for the long time between replies. i've been busy on other things :)
>
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> > Well, the rpm spec file-type has been with us a long time, well before
> > we knew better. Try to give your file-type an as specific name as
> > possible. You will not be getting the name "recipe"; it's way too
> > generic in this day and age. Go with "conrecipe" or something
> > similar. Remember: Bram has his own build system, called Aap, which
> > also uses recipes. Also, if Vim will never edit a (Conary) changeset,
> > then why will we have to worry about a name-clash between different
> > conary file-types?
>
> done - changed to conaryRecipe.
No other filetype has an uppercase letter. I would call it
conaryrecipe. It's a bit long, but clear.
Now all items in the syntax file need to start with "conaryrecipe" to
avoid any confusion with other syntax files and highlighting items.
"b:current_syntax" also needs to be set to the same name.
> > Nitpick: remove the empty comment.
>
> done
>
> > Just do
> >
> > if exists("b:current_syntax")
> > finish
> > endif
> >
> > No one will be using your syntax definition with vim 5 anyway. Let's
> > keep new files clean from (now) unnecessary cruft.
>
> done
>
> >> syn match conaryUse "Use\.[a-z0-9.]*" contains=conaryUseFlag
> >
> > Sure that * shouldn't be a \+? And can you have a sequence of dots,
> > as in Use...?
>
> done
>
> > A better way of doing this is to do (substitute \w with whatever
> > pattern your parser actually allows)
> >
> > syn match conaryUse
> > \ "Use\.\w\+"
> > \ nextgroup=conaryUseFlag
> >
> > syn keyword conaryUseFlag
> > \ contained
> > \ nextgroup=conaryUseFlagSeparator
> > \ pcre
> > \ tcpwrappers
> > \ ...
> >
> > syn match conaryUseFlagSeparator
> > \ contained
> > \ nextgroup=conaryUseFlag
> > \ '\.'
>
> that didn't work for me for some reason. perhaps i'm misunderstanding?
>
> >> "syn match conaryR "r\.\w*" contains=conaryFunction
> >
> > Leftover?
>
> yes. axed.
>
> >> if version >= 508 || !exists("did_python_syn_inits")
> >> if version <= 508
> >> let did_python_syn_inits = 1
> >> command -nargs=+ HiLink hi link <args>
> >> else
> >> command -nargs=+ HiLink hi def link <args>
> >> endif
> >
> > Just skip this. No one will be using your syntax definition with Vim 5.
>
> yep, removed. as i said, rPath has been maintaining this for a long time. :)
You might as well use "hi def link" instead of HiLink.
> >> "HiLink pythonStatement Statement
> >> "HiLink pythonFunction Function
> >> "HiLink pythonConditional Conditional
> >> "HiLink pythonRepeat Repeat
> >> "HiLink pythonString String
> >> "HiLink pythonRawString String
> >> "HiLink pythonEscape Special
> >> "HiLink pythonOperator Operator
> >> "HiLink pythonPreCondit PreCondit
> >> "HiLink pythonComment Comment
> >> "HiLink pythonTodo Todo
> >
> > ?
>
> all wacked. just crufty.
But the "python" syntax items are still there. This doesn't look right.
> >> " vim: ts=8
> >
> > This is the default setting.
>
> removed
>
> new version attached, as before. thanks for the feedback. further feedback
> requested :)
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
27. You refer to your age as 3.x.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
