GNU bug report logs - #2910
23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 2910 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 2910 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Reuben Thomas <rrt <at> sc3d.org>
To: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
Subject: 23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:46:30 +0100 (BST)

In shell-script mode (at least for Shell-script[sh]), in the following line:

for i do

the token “do” is not colored as a keyword, which it should be. From
the relevant POSIX documentation:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02

The format for the for loop is as follows:

    for name [ in [word ... ]]do
        compound-list


    done

Note that there is no explicit mention of semi-colons (this appears to
be the issue, as if the line is changed to

for i; do

then it is colored correctly, although in fact this syntax is NOT
permitted by POSIX, although bash accepts it.) A semi-colon is only
needed (and indeed, rqeuired) when an “in” clause is used, as the
“word” list mentioned above must end in a semicolon.

Hence, two things seem to need fixing:

1. In Shell-script[sh,bash] modes, “for name do” should color “do” as
   a keyword.

2. In Shell-script[sh], “for name; do” should *not* color “do” as a
   keyword.


In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.14.3)
 of 2008-10-13 on rothera, modified by Debian
 (emacs-snapshot package, version 1:20081013-1)
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10600000
configured using `configure  '--build' 'i486-linux-gnu' '--host' 
'i486-linux-gnu' '--prefix=/usr' '--sharedstatedir=/var/lib' 
'--libexecdir=/usr/lib' '--localstatedir=/var' '--infodir=/usr/share/info' 
'--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--with-pop=yes' 
'--enable-locallisppath=/etc/emacs-snapshot:/etc/emacs:/usr/local/share/emacs/23.0.60/site-lisp:/usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp:/usr/share/emacs/23.0.60/site-lisp:/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp' 
'--with-x=yes' '--with-x-toolkit=gtk' 'build_alias=i486-linux-gnu' 
'host_alias=i486-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-DDEBIAN -DSITELOAD_PURESIZE_EXTRA=5000 
-g -O2' 'LDFLAGS=-g -Wl,--as-needed' 'CPPFLAGS=''

Important settings:
  value of $LC_ALL: nil
  value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
  value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
  value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
  value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
  value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
  value of $LC_TIME: nil
  value of $LANG: en_GB.UTF-8
  value of $XMODIFIERS: nil
  locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix
  default-enable-multibyte-characters: t

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | impatience, n.  the urge to do nothing
Listening to: 'Sanctus and Benedictus' from 'Mass of the Children and other
sacred music' (The Cambridge Singers / John Rutter)

Message #10 received at 2910 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Reuben Thomas <rrt <at> sc3d.org>
Cc: 2910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2910: 23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:21:53 -0400

The discussion at

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2009-04/msg00040.html

would indicate this was just a "typo" in the online posix docs.
Is any change in Emacs needed?

Message #15 received at 2910 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Reuben Thomas <rrt <at> sc3d.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 2910 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2910: 23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:06:56 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Glenn Morris wrote:

>
> The discussion at
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2009-04/msg00040.html
>
> would indicate this was just a "typo" in the online posix docs.
> Is any change in Emacs needed?

If you read the thread again, you'll see that there's no disagreement 
between me and the others over what the correct syntax is, just a 
disagreement over whether the POSIX document does in fact represent it. 
Emacs is definitely getting the coloring wrong.

As Eric Blake says:

Which means the POSIX-mandated syntax should really be represented as:

for name [in [word...] ;] do
  compound-list
done

which neatly demonstrates both the points I raised in my bug report.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | robber, n.  a candid man of affairs (Bierce)

Message #34 received at 2910-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Vath <martin <at> mvath.de>, 2910-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 26217-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#2910: 23.0.60; Shell-script coloring bug
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 11:01:40 -0400

>> I haven't found problems, but I'm suspicious because it seems too easy.
> Welcome to the world of Emacs, where "if it's easy it must be right".

BTW, pushed to `master`, thank you.


        Stefan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.