GNU bug report logs - #60555
29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter nodes

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 60555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Daniel Martín <mardani29 <at> yahoo.es>
Cc: 60555 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60555: 29.0.50;
 Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter
 nodes
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:58:06 +0200

> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 15:29:14 +0100
> From:  Daniel Martín via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
> 
> 
> In the Elisp manual, under "37.3 Retrieving Nodes" there is this text:
> 
>    We talk about a node being “smaller” or “larger”, and “lower” or
> “higher”.  A smaller and lower node is lower in the syntax tree and
> therefore spans a smaller portion of buffer text; a larger and higher
> node is higher up in the syntax tree, it contains many smaller nodes as
> its children, and therefore spans a larger portion of text.
> 
> I think the concepts of nodes being "lower" and "higher" are more or
> less clear, and the notation is similar to the one used in classic texts
> about rooted trees.  However, the concepts of "smaller" and "larger" are
> not very clear to me.  From the text, it seems that "lower" also means
> "smaller", and "higher" always means "larger".  Is that correct, or
> "smaller" and "larger" are really orthogonal to "lower" and "higher"?

They aren't orthogonal, AFAIU.  The text actually says that "lower"
necessarily also means "smaller".

Previous Next

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