GNU bug report logs -
#59693
29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly
Previous Next
Reported by: miha <at> kamnitnik.top
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 20:21:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 29.0.50
Done: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 15:13:19 -0800
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
> 59693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
> miha <at> kamnitnik.top
>
> >> 1. Only allow base buffer to have parsers, no change is needed for insdel.c, treesit_record_change can find the base buffer and update its parsers. We can ask indirect buffers to use their base buffer’s parser. Unless the base buffer is narrowed, I think it will work fine.
> >
> > I think this is fine, but we need to document it.
> >
> >> I remember that there were a discussion along the lines of user-narrow vs low-level narrow, what was the outcome of that discussion?
> >
> > Nothing in particular, and I don't think it's relevant. If some mode needs
> > to widen, it can.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Here is a patch that does #1.
Thanks, a few minor comments for documentation below.
> +If @var{buffer} (or the current buffer) is an indirect buffer, its
> +base buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers uses their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"use", in plural.
> @@ -447,7 +455,9 @@ Using Parser
> @defun treesit-parser-list &optional buffer
> This function returns the parser list of @var{buffer}. If
> @var{buffer} is @code{nil} or omitted, it defaults to the current
> -buffer.
> +buffer. If @var{buffer} (or the current buffer) is an indirect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd say more concisely
If that buffer is an indirect buffer, ...
And please add a cross-reference to the node where indirect buffers
are described.
> +buffer, its base buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers
> +uses their base buffer's parsers.
^^^^
"use".
> + Parsers in indirect buffers: We make indirect buffers to share the
> + parser of its base buffer. See bug#59693 for reasoning. */
I'd rather have a short summary of the reasoning here than ask the
readers to go to the bug tracker and read a long discussion. Just
explain why indirect buffers present a problem for a parser, and then
say that we decided to do this as the easiest, simplest solution.
> +If BUFFER (or the current buffer) is an indirect buffer, its base
> +buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers uses their base
^^^^
"use"
> +buffer's parsers. If the base buffer is narrowed, an indirect buffer
> +might not be able to retrieve information of the portion of the buffer
> +text that are invisible in the base buffer. Lisp programs should
> +widen as necessary should they want to use a parser in an indirect
> +buffer. */)
Here I would remove the second sentence: it is appropriate for the
manual, but is redundant in the doc string, since the next sentence
says it all.
> @@ -1329,7 +1345,10 @@ DEFUN ("treesit-parser-list",
> Ftreesit_parser_list, Streesit_parser_list,
> 0, 1, 0,
> doc: /* Return BUFFER's parser list.
> -BUFFER defaults to the current buffer. */)
> +
> +BUFFER defaults to the current buffer. If BUFFER (or the current
> +buffer) is an indirect buffer, its base buffer is used instead. That
> +is, indirect buffers uses their base buffer's parsers. */)
^^^^
"use"
Otherwise, LGTM.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 163 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.