Re: vim completion problem after workers/35168

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote on Mon, May 18, 2015 at 17:30:34 -0700:
> On May 18, 12:40pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: vim completion problem after workers/35168
> }
> } On Mon, 18 May 2015 14:22:20 +0300
> } Ismail Donmez <ismail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > _vim:7: parse error near `)'
> } 
> } Yet another annoyance: in the old hack, you got away with having a
> } pattern beginning with "(" (and containing balanced parentheses)
> } followed by an unbalanced ")".  Now you don't.
> 
> Hrm.  Zsh patterns include "(this|that)", and "case" syntax includes
> "pattern)" without an open paren, so ...?
> 
> The "old hack" is one of those "well, it really should have been done
> differently in the first place, but it wasn't, so now what?" issues
> that bug me because *somebody* is going to get bitten in the way _vim
> just was.

Is there any case in which the neither pre-35168 code nor post-35168
code gives a parse error, but the semantics are different?

I'm not as worried about previously-valid code becoming syntax error
(I've already found an instance of that "in the wild") as of valid code
becoming valid-but-semantically-different code.

Daniel