On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:27, Christophe Eymard < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 05:34, Benjamin Fritz <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Ben Fritz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > I cannot reproduce on Windows Vista gvim 7.3.2,06 with the syntax >> > rules you sent earlier on the snippet you send here. >> > >> > I also cannot reproduce, when I first set ft=javascript, and then >> > source your rules, thinking maybe there was something in there which >> > was interfering. >> > >> > With just your rules (not the javascript rules applied first), there >> > are absolutely no syntax rules matching below the last line of the >> > comment. >> > >> >> Here's what I did get. Input file, highlight script, and output of >> TOhtml attached. > > > I have tried your syntax file, and it behaves as expected. > > Here is the one I made. It has the problem I described. > The conflicting rule is coContext ; this is the one I want applied, yet the javaScriptDocTags, while being "contained" still wins over it. -- You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
