GNU bug report logs - #62333
30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes

Previous Next

Full log

Message #131 received at 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62333: 30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during
 certain changes
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:06:17 +0300

On 27/03/2023 16:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 08:24:42 +0000
>> From: Gregory Heytings<gregory <at> heytings.org>
>> cc: Eli Zaretskii<eliz <at> gnu.org>,wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com,casouri <at> gmail.com,
>>      62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>>>> 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? There is, again, a fair amount of confusion there, 
but 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. And for harder narrowing, users could have a 
separate command, or a prefit arg, or etc.

When I'm talking user-level, I mean interactive 'C-x n', of course.

Previous Next

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