GNU bug report logs - #77746
[PATCH] sh-mode: Fix incorrect word syntax for punctuation in sh-mode

Previous Next

Full log

Message #62 received at 77746 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: James Cherti <contact <at> jamescherti.com>
Cc: 77746 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: Re: bug#77746: [PATCH] sh-mode: Fix incorrect word syntax for
 punctuation in sh-mode
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:15:12 +0300

> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:29:44 -0400
> Cc: eliz <at> gnu.org, 77746 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
> From: James Cherti <contact <at> jamescherti.com>
> 
> 
> On 2025-04-14 13:23, Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the 
> Swiss army knife of text editors wrote:
> >> 1. Completion
> >> --------------
> >> Given the variable name `varname` in a comment,
> >> followed by ".":
> >>    #!/usr/bin/env bash
> >>    # The name of this variable is varname. Code:
> >>    var
> >>
> >> Completing "var" includes "varname." in the list of
> >> completions.
> > 
> > `varname.` is a valid command name and at the spot where you have `var`
> > above, you could very well be completing a command rather than a variable.
> > 
> >> (e.g. dabbrev completion. I am using Corfu/Cape,
> >> which displays all suggestions)
> > 
> > dabbrev doesn't even try to distinguish whether you're completing a var
> > or a command or a type or anything else for that matter, so it's mostly
> > unavoidable that it includes "useless" candidates (and that it misses
> > valid candidates, as well).  IOW you can't argue that it's correct or
> > not: you need to argue whether something will be usually useless or not.
> > 
> >> 2. Highlight symbol at point
> >> ----------------------------
> >> When the cursor is on the comment `varname.`,
> >> Emacs highlights `varname.` instead of `varname` when
> >> using `(hi-lock-face-symbol-at-point)`:
> >>    #!/usr/bin/env bash
> >>    # The name of this variable is varname. Code:
> >>    var
> > 
> > Same here.  `varname.` is a valid command name so it can make perfect
> > sense to highlight it.  Admittedly, I'd never seen a command with a `.`
> > at the end, but removing `.` from the symbol constituents would rule out
> > not just `varname.` but also all commands with a `.` in the middle of
> > their names:
> > 
> >      % ls /usr/bin/??*.* | wc
> >          180     180    4274
> >      %
> Yes, commands like mkfs.ext4 contain '.' and are valid.
> However, while :,!%^~ are valid characters for commands,
> it's rare to see them used in command names. For instance, I
> have no commands on my system that contain :,!%^~ despite
> having 3,843 files in /usr/bin/.
> 
> Perhaps this patch could be adjusted by removing '.' (given
> its common use in command names), and keeping :,!%^~
> as punctuation for variable names.
> 
> (Removing '.' would not only cover the majority of
> command/function names but also prevent using `!%^~:,` as
> symbol constituents, resulting in more accurate variable
> symbols.)

Did you try the tree-sitter based bash-ts-mode?  If you did, does it
solve this problem better than sh-mode?

Previous Next

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