GNU bug report logs - #59686
30.0.50; tree-sitter indentation in some loops and conditional statements is wrong

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
Cc: bruce.stephens <at> isode.com, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 59686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#59686: 30.0.50; tree-sitter indentation in some loops and  conditional statements is wrong
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 03:19:45 -0800

> On Dec 3, 2022, at 3:08 AM, Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3 December 2022 11:48:34 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> writes:
>> 
>>> Bruce Stephens <bruce.stephens <at> isode.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 02/12/2022 08:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> FWIW, this is an unusual style, so I see no catastrophe if it is not 110%
>>>>> according to expectations.  Users can easily fix that by tweaking their BOLs
>>>>> where important.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The example I gave would be unusual, I think, but I'd argue that the
>>>> situations where I saw the problem are quite natural.
>>>> 
>>>> For example,
>>>> 
>>>>                 } else if ( MYSTRCMP (attname, SOME_PREFIX_X400ADDRESS) ||
>>>>                             MYSTRCMP (attname, SOME_PREFIX_X400) ) {
>>>>                     FOO_ptr orp = foo_std2foo (val);
>>>> 
>>>> or a function declaration with several arguments with types that are
>>>> rather long.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree it's not a critical bug but if there's no appropriate general
>>>> fix it would be helpful to have some guidance for users to resolve our
>>>> specific cases.
>>> 
>>> This is the case I was thinking of.  In the for-loop a grand-parent-bol
>>> on compound_statement rule would match the 'for' keyword, so the
>>> indentation will be correct, but this one will not, IIRC.  I plan to dig
>>> into this some more soon, but motivation left me a little on that issue.
>>> Maybe we could make a preset like:
>>> 
>>> ```
>>> (seq
>>> (parent-is "compound_statement") parent (parent-is "for_statement") bol)
>>> ```
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In other words, make other presets execute sequentially, move point,
>>> check again, and if all are true, pick indent offset.  Or allow multiple
>>> captures, like so:
>>> 
>>> ```
>>> (for_statement @offset-anchor
>>>  body: (compound_statement (_) @to-indent))
>>> ```
>>> 
>>> Here the @to-indent capture would get the new indent level based on
>>> treesit-node-start of for_statement.
>>> 
>>> What do you think, Yuan?
>> 
>> I think we can just test for the grandparent, there is an
>> (undocumented) matcher n-p-gp which matches parent and grandparent.
>> 
>> Yuan
> 
> Yeah I know, but that doesn't work in every case we see this behavior.

I see, but at least it fixes common cases that I can think of right now, namely if, for, while. What are some other cases?

Yuan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.