4

It would seem the bash code in this question could be syntax highlighted. Why isn't it?

4

It could be; this is largely done per-tag now.

  • 1
    could be, should be, Here I think, the shell, and maybe the c code, as we have a little c. Though c is much less important. But we have a lot of shell – xenoterracide Jan 11 '11 at 12:29
5

We have activated highlighting and used the following rules:

[bash] = lang-bsh
[shell] = lang-sh [sh] = lang-sh
[csh] = lang-csh
[awk] = default

For more details on how this works, see: Changes to syntax highlighting

  • might want to do zsh to sh or maybe even bash (it's largely compat to bash) – xenoterracide Jan 12 '11 at 2:25
0

I guess that the code block is different on every SE site. For example, on SO the majority of them are for programming code snippets, so it makes sense to highlight certain keywords and patterns. Here, however, I think the majority of code blocks are for sections in log file or configuration directives, so it may not be appropriate to highlight all code blocks. In fact, I haven't seen any question on Unix SE with code highlighting, so I think here they are all like the <pre> tag.

Another possibility: we are still in beta, and maybe beta sites do not have code highlighting?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .