GNU bug report logs -
#62333
30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes
Previous Next
Full log
Message #107 received at 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> On Mar 25, 2023, at 9:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:31:58 -0700
>> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>,
>> Wilhelm Kirschbaum <wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com>,
>> 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>>
>> 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.
Maybe the user narrowed to a defun when writing code. There is a bug report on narrow-to-defun not working right in c-ts-mode, so there are definitely people who work like that.
>> 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.
Dmitry’s idea sounds good, we can add a tree-sitter backend for show-paren-data-function, and make the backend for blink-matching-paren configurable, then add a backend for it that uses show-paren-data-function, which in turn uses tree-sitter (or we add a backend that uses tree-sitter directly). In either case, the tree-sitter backend don’t need to use narrowing and we are good.
Yuan
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 77 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.