0
0
mirror of https://github.com/vim/vim.git synced 2025-09-25 03:54:15 -04:00

patch 9.0.0156: giving E1170 only in an expression is confusing

Problem:    Giving E1170 only in an expression is confusing.
Solution:   Give E1170 for any "#{ comment". (closes #10855)
This commit is contained in:
Bram Moolenaar
2022-08-06 18:12:06 +01:00
parent db9b96d844
commit 3f74c0ab32
6 changed files with 24 additions and 14 deletions

View File

@@ -2984,8 +2984,8 @@ EXTERN char e_argument_already_declared_in_script_str[]
INIT(= N_("E1168: Argument already declared in the script: %s"));
EXTERN char e_expression_too_recursive_str[]
INIT(= N_("E1169: Expression too recursive: %s"));
EXTERN char e_cannot_use_hash_curly_to_start_comment_in_an_expression[]
INIT(= N_("E1170: Cannot use #{ to start a comment in an expression"));
EXTERN char e_cannot_use_hash_curly_to_start_comment[]
INIT(= N_("E1170: Cannot use #{ to start a comment"));
EXTERN char e_missing_end_block[]
INIT(= N_("E1171: Missing } after inline function"));
EXTERN char e_cannot_use_default_values_in_lambda[]

View File

@@ -2157,8 +2157,6 @@ newline_skip_comments(char_u *arg)
break;
p = nl;
}
else if (vim9_bad_comment(p))
break;
if (*p != NL)
break;
++p; // skip another NL
@@ -2184,10 +2182,7 @@ getline_peek_skip_comments(evalarg_T *evalarg)
break;
p = skipwhite(next);
if (*p != NUL && !vim9_comment_start(p))
{
(void)vim9_bad_comment(p);
return next;
}
if (eval_next_line(NULL, evalarg) == NULL)
break;
}

View File

@@ -2842,8 +2842,14 @@ parse_command_modifiers(
if (eap->nextcmd != NULL)
++eap->nextcmd;
}
if (vim9script && has_cmdmod(cmod, FALSE))
*errormsg = _(e_command_modifier_without_command);
if (vim9script)
{
if (has_cmdmod(cmod, FALSE))
*errormsg = _(e_command_modifier_without_command);
if (eap->cmd[0] == '#' && eap->cmd[1] == '{'
&& eap->cmd[2] != '{')
*errormsg = _(e_cannot_use_hash_curly_to_start_comment);
}
return FAIL;
}
if (*eap->cmd == NUL)

View File

@@ -2668,8 +2668,12 @@ def Test_vim9_comment()
'vim9script',
'# something',
'#something',
'#{something',
'#{{something',
])
v9.CheckScriptFailure([
'vim9script',
'#{something',
], 'E1170:')
split Xfile
v9.CheckScriptSuccess([

View File

@@ -735,6 +735,8 @@ static char *(features[]) =
static int included_patches[] =
{ /* Add new patch number below this line */
/**/
156,
/**/
155,
/**/

View File

@@ -176,16 +176,18 @@ not_in_vim9(exarg_T *eap)
}
/*
* Give an error message if "p" points at "#{" and return TRUE.
* Return TRUE if "p" points at "#{", not "#{{".
* Give an error message if not done already.
* This avoids that using a legacy style #{} dictionary leads to difficult to
* understand errors.
*/
int
vim9_bad_comment(char_u *p)
{
if (!did_emsg && p[0] == '#' && p[1] == '{' && p[2] != '{')
if (p[0] == '#' && p[1] == '{' && p[2] != '{')
{
emsg(_(e_cannot_use_hash_curly_to_start_comment_in_an_expression));
if (!did_emsg)
emsg(_(e_cannot_use_hash_curly_to_start_comment));
return TRUE;
}
return FALSE;
@@ -194,12 +196,13 @@ vim9_bad_comment(char_u *p)
/*
* Return TRUE if "p" points at a "#" not followed by one '{'.
* Gives an error for using "#{", not for "#{{".
* Does not check for white space.
*/
int
vim9_comment_start(char_u *p)
{
return p[0] == '#' && (p[1] != '{' || p[2] == '{');
return p[0] == '#' && !vim9_bad_comment(p);
}
#if defined(FEAT_EVAL) || defined(PROTO)