Bug#848663: vim: sh syntax highlighting of command substitution $() is wrong

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:10:41 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:34:54 +0100 Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 19/12/16 14:02, James McCoy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:55:50AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > >> Vim's currenr behaviour for syntax highlighting of shell scripts (with
> > >> #!/bin/sh and /bin/sh pointing to dash) is to mark command
> > >> substititions using the $(foo) construction as an error.
> > > 
> > > Not that I can see.
> > 
> > I've just tried this with a clean strecht system (no ~/.vim* present):
> > screenshot is attached.  The $(foo) is clearly marked as an error there
> > (inverse colors in this color scheme), in the same way as real bashisms
> > like $'' and ${foo%bar}.
> 
> Hello,
> I am another user bitten by this bug.
> 
> Indeed, $(foo) does not appear to be a bashism, yet it's incorrectly
> marked as an error by vim, when found in a POSIX shell script.
> 
> $'foo' is an actual bashism, so marking it as an error in a POSIX shell
> script is OK.
> 
> On the other hand, substring processing (${FOO%bar}, ${FOO%%bar},
> ${FOO#bar}, ${FOO##bar}) is not a bashism: the man page for dash(1)
> states that it is supported and checkbashism does not complain...
> 
> Hence, I think vim should not mark it as an error.
> Actually vim-runtime/2:7.4.488-7+deb8u2 (which is in jessie) correctly
> highlights substring processing, as shown in the first attached
> screenshot.
> Unfortunately, vim-runtime/2:8.0.0197-2 (which is in stretch) wrongly
> considers it as a syntax error in POSIX shell scripts, as shown in the
> second attached screenshot.
> 
> The two screenshots were obtained (on jessie and stretch, respectively)
> with
> 
>   $ view -u NONE test.sh
> 
> followed by
> 
>  :syn on 
>  :set bg=dark
> 
> 
> I am under the impression that this misbehavior is caused by the same
> bug reported by Bas.
> Dear Debian Vim Maintainers, would you like me to file a separate bug
> report for this?
> Please let me know.

Once again, should I file a separate bug report?

> 
> At any rate, please fix the bug(s) and/or forward the report(s)
> upstream, as appropriate.

What's the status of this bug report?
Is there any progress in fixing it?
Has it been forwarded upstream?

Please let me know, thanks for your time!
Bye.



-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/attachments/20170320/62f2a871/attachment.sig>