GNU bug report logs - #61655
[Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Jacob Faibussowitsch <jacob.fai <at> gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: Randy Taylor <dev <at> rjt.dev>, Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, 61655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#61655: [Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:07:32 -0500

> What's a "member function"? Is it like a method?

Yeah, I suppose method is the more general term for it.

> If people want this distinction, we can add such face. But I'm curious whether some other editors use different colors for these cases.

I personally do not; I brought it up because it was functionality that the 3rd party package had over stock. I think a good representative list is the one vscode offers:

https://code.visualstudio.com/api/language-extensions/semantic-highlight-guide#standard-token-types-and-modifiers

> I'm also wondering what face we're supposed to use for "receiver-less" method calls, such as calls to the methods defined in the same class, in e.g. Ruby and Java. Or C++/C#. They don't use ‘this’.

I don’t think emacs should worry about differentiating these cases. Highlight those tokens as tree-sitter sees them; regular function calls (i.e. `font-lock-function-call-face`). It’s a problem you cannot accurately solve without playing the compiler — with all of the implementation and not to mention performance baggage that comes with it.

> I also wonder whether we'll need to separate faces for properties: definitions vs. uses. That one we could use to do early, to keep the names uniform, e.g. we'd have:

This is something (also 3rd party package) lsp-mode supports through their semantic highlighting. They further distinguish between read and writes to variables. But again, they are able to do so because they hook directly into compilers.

Best regards,

Jacob Faibussowitsch
(Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch)

> On Feb 21, 2023, at 18:24, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> On 21/02/2023 17:31, Jacob Faibussowitsch wrote:
> > but maybe a better default is to leave these faces totally blank and
> > just purely `:inherit` from `font-lock-function-name-face`
> 
> I believe so.
> 
>> +(defface font-lock-function-call-face
>> +  '((t :inherit font-lock-function-name-face :foreground "royalblue1"))
>> +  "Font Lock mode face used to highlight function calls."
>> +  :group 'font-lock-faces)
> 
> This one I was thinking of as well.
> 
>> +(defface font-lock-member-function-call-face
>> +  '((t :inherit font-lock-function-name-face :foreground "brightred"))
>> +  "Font Lock mode face used to highlight member function calls."
>> +  :group 'font-lock-faces)
> 
> What's a "member function"? Is it like a method? If people want this distinction, we can add such face. But I'm curious whether some other editors use different colors for these cases.
> 
> I'm also wondering what face we're supposed to use for "receiver-less" method calls, such as calls to the methods defined in the same class, in e.g. Ruby and Java. Or C++/C#. They don't use 'this'.
> 
> I think more importantly, we need a new face for variables.
> 
> font-lock-variable-ref-face ?
> 
> I also wonder whether we'll need to separate faces for properties: definitions vs. uses. That one we could use to do early, to keep the names uniform, e.g. we'd have:
> 
>  font-lock-function-name-face
>  font-lock-function-call-face
>  font-lock-variable-name-face
>  font-lock-variable-ref-face
>  font-lock-property-name-face
>  font-lock-property-ref-face

Previous Next

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