GNU bug report logs - #64017
Wrong conversion from Emacs to Tree-sitter S-expression syntax

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:15:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: contovob <at> tcd.ie, 64017 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#64017: Wrong conversion from Emacs to Tree-sitter S-expression syntax
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:25:48 +0200

16 juni 2023 kl. 00.08 skrev Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>:

>> (By the way, why is the conversion written in C? Was Lisp too slow?)
> 
> Because I wasn't sure if it’s ok for C functions to rely on Lisp functions, plus the function is simple enough. Right now if one doesn’t load treesit.el, all the C functions work fine.

All right, let's keep it there for now.
I fixed the string conversion bug in 8657afac77.

>> Ideally we should not need to expose the tree-sitter s-exp query syntax at all. Surely Emacs s-exps should be preferable in every case?

> It shouldn’t hurt to expose the tree-sitter sexp. Other editors mainly use the string syntax.

Most of them probably aren't written in Lisp. But fine, let's keep it as an alternative syntax.

> The difference between tree-sitter syntax and Elisp sexp syntax is petty small (anchor, predicates), so the text describing the tree-sitter syntax is basically describing Elisp sexp syntax.

Yes, so it seemed to me but reading the source code (lib/src/query.c) seems to indicate that what I thought were symbols -- *, +, ?, @thing, #thing -- appear to be special postfix and prefix operators. (Ironically, there doesn't seem to be a grammar for this language anywhere, or am I mistaken?)

Thus a structurally correct Lispish translation of

  (teet "toot"* (#equal "fie" @fum))

should arguable be something like

  (teet (* "toot") ((# equal) "fie" (@ fum)))

rather than the current

  (teet "toot" :* (:equal "fie @fum))

but I'm not demanding that it all be changed at this stage.

> With that said if someone makes it describe Elisp sexp syntax first, I wouldn’t mind.

I'll have a look. Wouldn't it be reasonable to use the Elisp syntax, briefly state how it corresponds to the 'native' syntax, and refer to the official tree-sitter documentation for details about the latter?
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 34 days ago.

Previous Next

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