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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com, casouri <at> gmail.com, 62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#62333: 30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 20:40:30 +0300

> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 19:05:13 +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 18:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> >> Cc: "wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com" <wkirschbaum <at> gmail.com>,
> >> 	"casouri <at> gmail.com" <casouri <at> gmail.com>,
> >> 	"62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <62333 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
> >> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 19:03:45 +0300
> >>
> >>    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.
> >>
> >> How?
> > 
> > The same way it makes sure a given parser is used only on the portion
> > of the buffer where the corresponding language is used.
> 
> It uses narrowing.

How does that work with features such as font-lock, which do widen?

Anyway, isn't this discussion a bit premature, as no TS mode has been
used with the mmm framework yet?  Because when they do, I imagine they
will need to invent some mechanism that is more reliable than
narrowing.

Previous Next

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