GNU bug report logs - #72525
31.0.50; Forward sexp inconsistency issue c++-ts-mode

Previous Next

Full log

Message #22 received at 72525-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: spacibba <at> aol.com, 72525-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72525: 31.0.50; Forward sexp inconsistency issue c++-ts-mode
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:36:42 +0300

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:53:51 -0700
> Cc: Ergus <spacibba <at> aol.com>,
>  72525 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> 
> > On Aug 24, 2024, at 1:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Ping!  Any progress with this?
> > 
> >> From: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>
> >> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:10:01 -0700
> >> Cc: Ergus <spacibba <at> aol.com>,
> >> 72525 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 10, 2024, at 12:56 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 16:45:42 +0200
> >>>> From:  Ergus via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
> >>>> the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Using this code:
> >>>> 
> >>>> ```
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> }
> >>>> ```
> >>>> 
> >>>> There is an inconsistency in the c++-ts-mode behavior of `forward-sexp`.
> >>>> 
> >>>> When there is a comment at the end of the line, if I do `mark-sexp`
> >>>> (C-M-SPC) consecutively I get this selected regions:
> >>>> 
> >>>> -----------------------------
> >>>> 1.
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> 
> >>>> 2.
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> 
> >>>> 3.
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> abort
> >>>> 
> >>>> 4.
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> abort()
> >>>> 
> >>>> 5.
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> 
> >>>> 6.
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> abort(); /* 1 */
> >>>> 
> >>>> -------------------------------
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> But when there is NOT trailing comment
> >>>> 
> >>>> ```
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> }
> >>>> ```
> >>>> 
> >>>> -------------------------------
> >>>> 1.
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> 
> >>>> 2.
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> abort();
> >>>> -------------------------------
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> It looks like in the fist example after 3 the sexp definition is more fine
> >>>> grained (similar to the previous c++-mode behavior) and it selects
> >>>> separately:
> >>>> the function name,
> >>>> the arguments
> >>>> the semicolon
> >>>> the comment
> >>>> 
> >>>> But if there is no comment at the end, it always considers the complete
> >>>> line as a sexp (including the ;).
> >>>> 
> >>>> For my use case I would prefer the old behavior because it is consistent
> >>>> with the current sexp definition in all emacs (with maybe the exception
> >>>> of python-mode).  Because it is easier to copy function names or
> >>>> function calls with a few movements.
> >>>> 
> >>>> However, if it is too difficult to reproduce the old behavior; then the
> >>>> new one may be implemented consistently.
> >>> 
> >>> Yuan, any comments or suggestions?
> >>> 
> >>> FWIW, I'm not sure this is a bug: what constitutes a "sexp" in C++
> >>> source code is not well-defined.
> >> 
> >> Yeah I’ll look into this. And yeah there were some discussion around how should we define sexp in c++-ts-mode but there wasn’t a concrete conclusion (I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a concrete one anyway.) Still, if it can be made more convenient for common use-cases I’m more than happy to improve it. Just be aware that I’ll be super busy next week (and I still haven’t done the parse string feature) so it might take me a while to get back.
> >> 
> >> Yuan
> 
> I know the reason for the inconsistency now. Treesit-forward-sexp first checks whether point is in a “text” node, ie, comment or string; if so, it uses the default/normal forward-sexp function; if not, it uses the parse tree to go over sexp.
> 
> In the first example, because there’s a comment right before point, treesit-forward-sexp thinks it’s in a text node, and used the normal forward-sexp function, which moved point after the next symbol.
> 
> In the second example, because there’s no comment anymore, treesit-forward-sexp uses the parse tree to move the point; and since the next node after point is the statement line, it moves point over the whole line. When using the parse tree to move point, treesit-forward-sexp always moves in the same “level” in which that point is. Eg, when point is between two lines, treesit-forward-sexp moves over lines; if point is inside an argument list between two arguments, treesit-forward-sexp moves over each argument.
> 
> If you want to just select the identifier or other more fine-grained movement, IMHO it’s probably better to use forward-word.
> 
> I fixed the inconsistency so now treesit-forward-sexp in both example moves over the whole line. The fix is pushed to emacs-30.

Thanks.

No further comments, so I assume the bug is fixed, and I'm therefore
closing it.

Previous Next

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