Matthew Woehlke wrote: > True, but... not really relevant. The original question deals with how > kate should highlight this, ergo we need to know if the current behavior > is intended. Using a syntax that doesn't confuse kate is a workaround, > not a fix. (Also, if you'd read the bug report, you'd see I already > suggested a work-around.)
Hmm... Well... Okay. But then you didn't say that in *your* message to the mailing list. If you had asked how should that be syntax highlighted then I would definitely have given a different response. :-) Bob
