From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 16.02.2025 02:25, Kenny McCormack wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > Janis Papanagnou   wrote:   
   >> On 15.02.2025 17:27, Kenny McCormack wrote:   
   >>> Overall problem: I'm trying to debug a problem in the syntax highlighting   
   >>> of a particular shell script.   
   >>>   
   >>> I want to know if there is some variable that is set by the syntax   
   >>> apparatus that tells me either or both of:   
   >>>   
   >>>     1) What version of sh.vim was used?   
   >>>     2) The full path of the used sh.vim file?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If in doubt I'm inspecting (according to :help) what Vim shows me   
   >> when I'm typing ':set rtp'. There's a couple directories and mine   
   >> shows (for and on a Unix system) '/usr/share/vim/vim73' so my 'sh'   
   >> default syntax file would be '/usr/share/vim/vim73/syntax/sh.vim'.   
   >>   
   >> But there's more directories shown in that path list that appear   
   >> before the '/usr/share' path, and I have also a local directory   
   >> '~/.vim/after/syntax/sh/...' where some changes to the default   
   >> behavior for 'sh' are defined.   
   >   
   > Right.  I am familiar with all that.   
   >   
   > But (IMNSHO, of course) those all fit in the "kludgey workarounds" category.   
   > I mean, they are indirect ways of coming to an approximation of the truth.   
   >   
   > What I really want (and my reason for posting this thread) is to know if   
   > there is a direct (not directory) way to actually get the information, not   
   > an approximation.   
   >   
   > Isn't there some kind of "verbose mode" that makes VIM tell you every file   
   > it sources (as it is sourcing it)?  That would be closer to the truth, but   
   > still not ideal.   
   >   
   > Incidentally, I did put a sh.vim in my locatel syntax directory, and was   
   > able to conclude, using inotifywait, that it was being sourced when a shell   
   > script as loaded in vim.  But that also is in the "approximation" category.   
      
   Hmm.., you were speaking about "an approximation of the truth".   
      
   Well, in physics generally, and specifically in software, everything is   
   sort of indirect (and even affected by user interaction). Even if Vim   
   would provide a "verbose debug" option that would not be a guaranteed.   
   So I'm not sure how much "direct" you intend, what level you dismiss,   
   and what you'd accept. - For me the built-in paths would be reliable   
   enough. Since no more certainty seems to be natively supported by Vim   
   you'd either have to resort to such "workarounds"; since you mentioned   
   'inotifywait' I'd add 'strace' to that and look for the 'open()' calls.   
   But maybe you prefer to inspect the Vim source code - but that appears   
   complicated -, or add a diagnostic message in a self-compiled version?   
   You see, it can be simple or arbitrary complex. - It depends on your   
   demands - can you be more specific here? - and your grade of interest   
   or paranoia. :-)   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)