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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #248 received at 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Wilhelm Kirschbaum <wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com>,
 Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: bug#62333: 30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during
 certain changes
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 15:08:01 -0700

> On Mar 31, 2023, at 10:47 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:43:49 -0700
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>> Wilhelm Kirschbaum <wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com>,
>> Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>,
>> 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> I think the distinction lies between “I want to narrow to this defun and work on it without distraction” vs “treat this region as an isolated buffer”. The former used by users, the latter used by lisp programs like Info and mmm-mode. The former still considers the visible region part of the whole buffer, just temporarily narrowed for convenience, the latter wants to make everything thinks the visible region _is_ the whole buffer.
> 
> Users can do both, for whatever reasons.

Yeah, but it might be beneficial for lisp programs to be able to distinguish between the two types of narrowing, and act differently.

>> It might be good for tree-sitter or other parsers to be exempt from (but still acknowledges) the first kind of narrowing. This way the parser can avoid unnecessary re-parse, and always provide the optimal information. We just need to modify tree-sitter functions to check for this narrowing and don’t return anything beyond the boundaries. It’s probably going to be a lot of hair, but should be doable, I think?
> 
> I don't see why it would be a lot of hair.  If a parser always has the
> regions on which it is supposed to work, then a Lisp program using a
> parser can simply widen the buffer when it needs to be sure a
> narrowing doesn't get in the way.

Yes, the current situation is straightforward. I’m just saying that supporting what I described would require some work (let tree-sitter be able to peek outside the visible region but still pretend to respect narrowing).

Yuan

Previous Next

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