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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Basil Contovounesios <contovob <at> tcd.ie>,
 Bug Report Emacs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Wrong conversion from Emacs to Tree-sitter S-expression syntax
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 16:02:58 -0700

> 
> 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.

IMHO the query syntax is already pretty far away from a “proper sexp” that we expect, so changing these little things don’t have much benefit. For example, the field names and trailing capture names are not conventional, are we going to change them to be more sexpy too? 

In a proper sexp they would have been wrapped too, like

(field-name: node) rather than field-name: node
(@fn node) rather than node @fn

Not to mention using colon and @ to distinguish field-names and capture names from nodes—not very conventional either.

Also a more conventional sexp syntax would be much more verbose than the current one, and arguable harder to translate to the tree-sitter string syntax, which is ultimately what we feed to tree-sitter functions.

Yuan

Previous Next

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