Closed mmastrac closed 10 years ago
This seems to work for me -- I can turn it into a pull request if it looks good:
diff --git a/MikrotikScript.YAML-tmLanguage b/MikrotikScript.YAML-tmLanguage
index 69e2085..00426de 100644
--- a/MikrotikScript.YAML-tmLanguage
+++ b/MikrotikScript.YAML-tmLanguage
@@ -43,15 +43,11 @@ repository:
comments:
patterns:
- name: comment.line.number-sign.mikrotik-script
- match: ^(#).*$\n?
+ match: (#).*$\n?
captures:
'1': {name: punctuation.definition.comment.mikrotik-script}
comment: comments are ignored by syntax
- - match: (#.*)$\n?
- captures:
- '1': {name: invalid.illegal.unexpected-comment.mikrotik-script}
-
parameters-readwrite:
patterns:
- match: >
diff --git a/MikrotikScript.tmLanguage b/MikrotikScript.tmLanguage
index 57ac1d1..621f5f2 100644
--- a/MikrotikScript.tmLanguage
+++ b/MikrotikScript.tmLanguage
@@ -106,22 +106,10 @@
<key>comment</key>
<string>comments are ignored by syntax</string>
<key>match</key>
- <string>^(#).*$\n?</string>
+ <string>(#).*$\n?</string>
<key>name</key>
<string>comment.line.number-sign.mikrotik-script</string>
</dict>
- <dict>
- <key>captures</key>
- <dict>
- <key>1</key>
- <dict>
- <key>name</key>
- <string>invalid.illegal.unexpected-comment.mikrotik-script</string>
- </dict>
- </dict>
- <key>match</key>
- <string>(#.*)$\n?</string>
- </dict>
</array>
</dict>
<key>control-flow</key>
What version are you using? I guess it would make sense to ask on their forum first to confirm that it's not a bug in their parser.
I posted in the forums and it sounds like indented comments are valid as of 6.13: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=88777&sid=f0127209049ca0ee2fc4b44a590714fe
Here's the changelog that specifies this as well:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=85085
It looks like this is also a valid comment now according to that post (the syntax highlighter in the ssh console confirms this):
put 1; # hi
Cool! Could you make a PR?
Closing in favour of PR #3
At least in the version that I'm using, an indented comment is perfectly legal. Would it make sense to remove this check from the syntax?