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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #215 received at 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, gregory <at> heytings.org, 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: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:22:55 +0300

> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:25:41 +0300
> Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> 
> On 30/03/2023 19:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 15:50:31 +0000
> >> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>
> >> cc: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>, wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com,
> >>      62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >>
> >>> No, the idea is to create the parser with these restrictions to begin
> >>> with.
> >>
> >> Could you perhaps explain, with some fictitious code, what kind of
> >> solution you imagine?  I'm not sure I understand (euphemism for: I'm sure
> >> I don't understand) the problem statement.
> > 
> > Something like
> > 
> >    (treesit-make-parser LANGUAGE BUFFER nil START END)
> 
> What kind of code would be calling this?
> 
> What happens when the user types a character before START? What happens 
> when they delete a character at START or END? Or a whole line?
> 
> > and
> > 
> >    (treesit-parser-set-included-ranges RANGES...)
> > 
> > (the latter already exists).
> 
> Indeed, a way to do this using tree-sitter indeed already exists, 
> offloading the parsing of the regions to tree-sitter. OTOH, this way we 
> only get tree-sitter features sorted into regions (parse tree, 
> indentation, highlighting).
> 
> Whatever other Lisp-level features we wanted to behave differently 
> between regions, we'd have do implement them the old way.
> 
> >> In what way would the restrictions you have in mind be different from
> >> those of a regular narrowing?
> > 
> > User-defined narrowing will never contradict parser restrictions.
> 
> IOW, user-defined narrowing should be only for visual purposes, as 
> described in another email. And perhaps to restrict movement (which is 
> related: you can't move to where you can't see).

I'm sorry, I cannot afford a discussion where you decided up front you
disagree, and just keep looking for arguments in favor of your
disagreement.  Such discussions are a waste of our time, and I have
very little of it to waste.  So I won't be responding to any further
messages here, unless they ask informative questions where I think I
can contribute something useful.

Previous Next

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