Is there some Vim syntax file existing that handles a contemporary
Kornshell syntax (ksh93u+) correctly, i.e. without displaying valid
ksh93 constructs as errors (as the existing sh.vim does[*])?

Janis

[*] A specific ksh.vim is obviously not existing in my Linux distro;
online resources seem to indicate that an sh.vim should cover that.

On 8/7/23 4:34 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Is there some Vim syntax file existing that handles a contemporary
> Kornshell syntax (ksh93u+) correctly, i.e. without displaying valid
> ksh93 constructs as errors (as the existing sh.vim does[*])?
>
> Janis
>
> [*] A specific ksh.vim is obviously not existing in my Linux distro;
> online resources seem to indicate that an sh.vim should cover that.

Does adding the following to your .vimrc file help?

let g:is_kornshell = 1

The ref link below has some other suggestions but you've likely tried
them already.

ref: https://vimhelp.org/syntax.txt.html#sh.vim

On 08.08.2023 01:08, jeorge wrote:
> On 8/7/23 4:34 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> Is there some Vim syntax file existing that handles a contemporary
>> Kornshell syntax (ksh93u+) correctly, i.e. without displaying valid
>> ksh93 constructs as errors (as the existing sh.vim does[*])?
>>
>> Janis
>>
>> [*] A specific ksh.vim is obviously not existing in my Linux distro;
>> online resources seem to indicate that an sh.vim should cover that.
>
> Does adding the following to your .vimrc file help?
>
> let g:is_kornshell = 1

No, as far as I can see it doesn't change anything.

To name just two wrongly marked syntax errors (as examples):

In ${.sh.value} marked as error: .sh.value
In ${PWD/${HOME}\//\~/}
marked as error: / and \//\~/

Janis

In article <uas5co$331bp$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>> let g:is_kornshell = 1
>
>No, as far as I can see it doesn't change anything.

Just to be clear, I want you to run the following tests:

$ vim mykornscript

Then do:

:echo b:is_kornshell

In fact, the way I usually do it is type in everything up to the _, then hit
tab to cycle through all the ones that are set. Note that the actual value
of the variable is irrelevant; it will always be either 1 or unset.

If you see that is_kornshell is already set, then you can ignore the rest
of this.

If it isn't, then do:

:let b:is_kornshell=1
:e

The :e is critical!

See if that fixes things (or not).

--
Treating the stock market indexes as general measures of the well-being of a
society is like treating your blood pressure as an indicator of health. The
higher, the better, right? In fact, a high stock market is good for the investor
class, but it means the rest of us are getting screwed better than ever.

On 08.08.2023 03:32, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <uas5co$331bp$1@dont-email.me>,
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> let g:is_kornshell = 1
>>
>> No, as far as I can see it doesn't change anything.
>
> Just to be clear, I want you to run the following tests:
>
> $ vim mykornscript
>
> Then do:
>
> :echo b:is_kornshell
>
> In fact, the way I usually do it is type in everything up to the _, then hit
> tab to cycle through all the ones that are set. Note that the actual value
> of the variable is irrelevant; it will always be either 1 or unset.
>
> If you see that is_kornshell is already set, then you can ignore the rest
> of this.
>
> If it isn't, then do:
>
> :let b:is_kornshell=1
> :e
>
> The :e is critical!
>
> See if that fixes things (or not).
>

Previously I had already tried

:let b:is_kornshell=1
:e!

now I also tried with :e and omitted the '!' (as you wrote).
The effect is the same, though.

Janis

On 2023-08-07, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there some Vim syntax file existing that handles a contemporary
> Kornshell syntax (ksh93u+) correctly, i.e. without displaying valid
> ksh93 constructs as errors (as the existing sh.vim does[*])?

Sir, I'm on a call with a customer who wants working POSIX shell
and Bash syntax highlighting for Vim. Can you hold please?

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Janis Papanagnou wrote:

>> On 8/7/23 4:34 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Is there some Vim syntax file existing that handles a contemporary
>>> Kornshell syntax (ksh93u+) correctly, i.e. without displaying valid
>>> ksh93 constructs as errors (as the existing sh.vim does[*])?
>>>
>>> [snip]
>
> To name just two wrongly marked syntax errors (as examples):
>
> In ${.sh.value} marked as error: .sh.value
> In ${PWD/${HOME}\//\~/}
> marked as error: / and \//\~/

Have you tried the zsh syntax highlighting (:set filetype=zsh)? I tried
these two constructs and neither was marked as an error.

Zsh supports a fairly large subset of ksh syntax and semantics,[1][2] so I'd
imagine that a lot of your scripts would be highlighted in a reasonable way
by the zsh syntax file. (If anything, you might run into problems where ksh
syntax errors *aren't* flagged because they're valid in zsh.)

Hope this helps,

Benjamin

[1] At least that's my impression as a zsh user but ksh non-user.

[2] I don't know whether the ksh emulation ever covered 100% of ksh syntax
and semantics, and even if it did in the past, ksh may have evolved
since then. I am far from an expert here :-)