Subject: bug#62333: 30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:32:59 +0300

> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:06:17 +0300
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
> 
> On 27/03/2023 16:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 08:24:42 +0000
> >> From: Gregory Heytings<[email-masked]>
> >> cc: Eli Zaretskii<[email-masked]>,[email-masked],[email-masked],
> >>      [email-masked]
> >>
> >>>> Which is a fragile, semi-broken means, as we all know.
> >>> What is a broken mess, is user-level narrowing. And how the downstream
> >>> code can never guess the purpose the narrowing was applied for.
> >> Note that this is what labeled narrowings attempts to solve.
> > Labeled narrowing cannot solve this because it does nothing to
> > alleviate the problems with user-defined narrowing.  So if the user
> > narrows the buffer, we cannot do anything to safely widen in the
> > general case, and labeled narrowing cannot help us.
> 
> Is that because we don't think the user level narrowing is done purely 
> for visual effect?

Indeed, it isn't always for visual effect.

> judging by regular user requests for make this or that command 
> ignore user-level narrowing, it seems like "purely visual" should be the 
> default interpretation.

I think you base your judgment on feedback from users who are not used
to take advantage of narrowing in editing.  I think most young people
aren't, since this feature is more-or-less unique to Emacs.