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

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 07:28:27 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:31:58 -0700
> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>,
>  Wilhelm Kirschbaum <[email-masked]>,
>  [email-masked]
> 
> 
> I don’t think we should blindly widen in tree-sitter sexp functions, but not because of mmm-mode—tree-sitter ranges should have that mostly covered. My primary concern is that what if narrowing is intended by the caller?

What could be the reason for the caller to narrow when calling a
sexp-movement function?  Keep in mind that the only narrowing that
matters is one that prevents the sexp-movement function to find the
target of the movement.

> But I don’t have any good idea for blink-matching right now.

We could leave this alone for now, but in that case let's at least add
some FIXME comment in the relevant place(s), so that we could later
revisit this.