From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Implementation direction for shell-script-mode with tree-sitter Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15305"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Yuan Fu , Theodor Thornhill , Eli Zaretskii To: =?windows-1252?Q?Jo=E3o?= Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 25 17:47:55 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1onM9i-0003YX-Lq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:47:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onM8j-0002o4-Nz; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onM8i-0002Hs-MC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onM8c-00012M-86; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:52 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BDD1A802B3; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3DD44805B2; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1666712798; bh=vrodDYwRl/NQ67nFzX5tXpjdbX+LFMVJb5gOC0wzQcE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pQwhlJMiSB29IYdcl7yN9/7I4oAym1F8W9/ULcmZ9V1UYaRT342ZpVN7ui+O4b6og e3/N69tBJ+8biSbRygBxMzMZvrfN9cQuwn0Ah1FNPn1dEapzH/waypDvxzhiBL95fk TcqAic5G4x44QHKTtlnKxerY+iad01o82SZg0aN2SU0/dSLFeOP7++qGjE3ZAwR0e/ p7A5madwtpXcOH5zhi2G/GzdNlXchuMlHuEryEMjDL/yYkklLM++PU+MmnJ+m3UDqI D+oDU7A8iFw8HmAJNDZL5bO3RM3vtJ8gpm/N3AvmNqwbhAgJAWITGRXopJfwupNOKD 3apacCmj5bBeQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [192.197.121.76]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1AAA120172; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:46:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o?= Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho"'s message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2022 09:05:10 -0600") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:298475 Archived-At: > The tree-sitter-bash grammar does not include many reserved words and > builtin commands that are currently fontified by the regex based > fontication in shell-script-mode. > > Here a list of the ones that tree-sitter-bash does not recognize: > > ("time" "coproc" "type" "trap" "exit" "exec" "continue" "break" "return" > "logout" "bye") AFAIK `time` is clearly a bug in the tree-sitter grammar. E.g. it probably causes a misparse for things like: time while ... do ... done The same probably holds for `coproc`. I suspect that for the other ones it doesn't make much difference, OTOH. So maybe the other ones were deliberately omitted to keep the grammar simpler. Stefan