Re: Initial fontification in sh-mode with tree-sittter

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Nov 12, 2022, at 3:57 PM, João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Yuan for the feedback and explanation.
> 
> I am attaching the patch with the corrections pointed out by you.
> 
> In here
> 
> +This is used instead of `font-lock-builtion-face' directly because
> +otherwise the whole command, including the variable assignment part,
> +is fontified with with `font-lock-builtin-face'. An alternative to
> +this would be to declaration_command nodes to have a `name:' field.”
> 
> I guess you meant “...for declaration_command node to have…”? (Declaimer: not native speaker)
> 
> You are right about the plural in nodes, as I was referring to a "class" of commands. But I think "to" is the correct preposition. Thus I changed the sentence to: An alternative to this would be to declaration_commands to have a `name:' field.
> 
> Let me know what you think and if something else looks off.

I forgot about one thing in the last message (sorry!):

+(provide 'sh-mode)
+;;; sh-mode.el ends here

Is there any particular reason why you changed sh-script to sh-mode?

Yuan