GNU bug report logs -
#62333
30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes
Previous Next
Full log
Message #65 received at 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 17:25:17 +0200
> Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
>
> On 25/03/2023 16:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:18:12 +0200
> >> Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> >>
> >>> mixed-major-mode shouldn't be a problem.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't it?
> >
> > Because the sexp ends inside the current mode's block.
>
> But if the mmm framework narrowed the region to the current mode's
> block, widening will force tree-sitter to parse the whole buffer.
No, because such a mode mode should already make sure this doesn't
happen.
> >> Okay. But do you advocate all uses of tree-sitter to (widen) first?
> >
> > No, just in sexp-movement functions, at least for now. If we discover
> > this is need in many more situations, we might consider more drastic
> > measures. But I don't think we are there yet. We've discovered just
> > one such case, in just one such mode, and it's on master. We still
> > have ample time to see how widespread this is.
>
> I'm not sure whether tree-sitter is going to be used with mmm-mode (or
> similar) a lot, since it has its own provisions for mixing languages.
>
> But I'd also like to consider the other cases where we *don't* want to
> widen first. Any of them come to mind?
No, not off the top of my head.
I think we should try this in this one case, and see if other cases
come up.
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.