GNU bug report logs - #61502
29.0.60; c-ts-mode auto-indent not working

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
Cc: 61502 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, casouri <at> gmail.com, pankaj <at> codeisgreat.org
Subject: bug#61502: 29.0.60; c-ts-mode auto-indent not working
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 22:02:02 +0200

> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
> Cc: 61502 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:41:04 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Keep typing whatever code you wan "int main" to include, and it will
> > auto-indent soon enough.
> 
> Yeah, but.

My point is that what we are used to from CC mode does not necessarily
have to work the same way with tree-sitter based modes.  As long as
the indentation fixes itself soon enough, we are still fine, I think.

> int
> main
> {
>   for (;;)
>     {|
> }
> ```
> 
> If you press RET if point at | you'll see we indent immediately, even
> though there is no closing bracket.  This is because of how
> treesit-indent defaults to treesit-node-on when there is no node at
> point.  So in the example without the for loop the parent is then set to
> whatever treesit-node-on returns, which in this case is the root
> node. That means that the rule for translation_unit is selected, which
> is:
> 
>          `(((parent-is "translation_unit") point-min 0)
> 
> However, what's interesting here is that treesit-indent selects an
> "unexisting" node as the "smallest-node".  Specifically that is:
> 
>          #<treesit-node "}" in 13-13>
> 
> This node in turn will return "compound_statement" if you look for its
> parent.  It seems some parsers detects these nodes, so maybe we should
> add some handling for that?  Some "block-closers" code in
> treesit-node-on, so that treesit-node-on doesn't default to the root
> node, but rather the compound_statement?

AFAIU, you are talking about hitting RET in the following situation
(where "|" stands for point):

int main ()
{|
}

However, the OP presented a slightly different situation:

int main ()
{|

That is, without the closing brace.  In that case, there's no "}" in
the source.  Are you saying that the tree-sitter's parser "invents"
such a node?

And why does treesit-indent select that "unexisting" node in the first
place?

> I'm not sure this explanation was easy to follow at all, but I'll add a
> hack in a diff to make the point hopefully a little clearer.
> 
> What do you think?

How well did you test that?  Does it fix similar problems with struct
definition at top-level?  Are there any regressions elsewhere in the
indentation?

There are also other similar cases, but with code on deeper levels.
Try this, for example (where "|" again stands for point):

int
main
{
  for (;;)|
}

Now press RET and observe the result:

int
main
{
  for (;;)
  |
}

instead of the expected

int
main
{
  for (;;)
    |
}

Why?

(Of course, as soon as you type ";", the code is automatically
reindented to yield the correct indentation.  Which was my point.)

Previous Next

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