SplashOff() not being parsed correctly by SyntaxCheck Prod and Tidy

[GUIDTracker]

I have noticed that both the Syntax Checker and Tidy programs used in SciTE don't parse the SplashOff command correctly (my understanding anyway). The Help text lists command as requiring trailing parenthesis ie. 'SplashOff ()', however, both Syntax Checker and Tidy ignore the trailing parenthesis. Scripts both tidy and compile successfully without throwing an error but leaving off the trailing parenthesis with the SplashOff command seems to break the script - see my attached example.

[guidtracker@…]

Example script

[Jpm]

In fact the SolashOff without parenthesis is legal when assign to a variable.

Local $v = SplashOff

That the reason why Au3check and certainly Tidy don't flag the Function
I don't think we can change that except in documentation
More Autoit builtin functions have the same behavior ProgressOff

[anonymous]

Jpm, this bug pertains only to Au3Check, NOT to AutoIt. It has nothing to do with the builtin functions; if we use a user-defined func is this *erroneous* way, the result is the same. So, in particular, there's no need to change the documentation.

AutoIt rightfully crashes with "Error parsing function call" because the function is NOT assigned to a variable!

#include <Misc.au3>
MsgBox ; of course this will cause a crash!
_IsPressed ; and this, too.
;The point is, the SyntaxChecker SHOULD catch this! but it doesn't... hence the ticket.

if it is assigned to a variable, then of course there's no problem.

#include <Misc.au3>
$mb = MsgBox ;and this is perfectly fine.
$ispressed = _IsPressed ;no problem here.

I recommend reopen the ticket and try to fix it when there's time. It is arguably not a critical bug, but a bug nonetheless.

~anonymous

[Jos]

Not going to happen as au3check's purpose isn't to execute script but rather precheck for obvious errors. This one as explained is going to stay as it is.
... and I have no clue what Tidy has to do with any of this.

[anonymous]

ok, a func all by itself on a single line is not a glaringly obvious error. rrrright. someone's got a 4-digit IQ... in binary! >:/

it can even be catched by a dead-simple regexp if anything else is ToO ComTPLicaTeD!
"(?m)^\s*\w+\s*(;.*)?$"