On 2021-11-21, daz10000 wrote: > though to be fair, it looks like it has been treating .fs as forth for a > while, > but the changes to the forth definition (more recent but not terribly recent) > pushed it over the edge. The right thing to do probably would be to include a > decent F# definition and determine what you are dealing with and use the right > one. I'm willing to take a bet that the vast majority of the .fs forth > definition consumers are F# programmers at this point though :( - I struggled > to even find any forth code to see what it looked like.
I tried to find a change that would explain what you observed, but I can't. Since Vim 7.0, I found one change to syntax/forth.vim that [improperly] sets 'iskeyword' and one change to filetype.vim that adds .fth as a forth file extension. I also tried to find examples of Forth code as I've never used it, and found an interesting answer to this question on StackOverflow, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18246756/what-is-the-most-common-filename-extension-of-a-forth-source-code-file, that claims that in May, 2021, Github had: 148303 F# files with .fs extensions; and 83217 Forth files with .fs extensions. That's only twice as many F# files as Forth files using .fs. Regards, Gary -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/20211122083936.GC12715%40phoenix.
