Subject: bug#73404: 30.0.50; [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not behave as expected in tree-sitter modes

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:12:15 -0500

> Ah, this matches my idea of defining sexp in other languages as “repeatable
> construct/list-like construct”.  We went with “every syntactic construct” at
> the time, which I didn’t object to, but I’m definitely happier with the
> repeatable construct approach. Including Stefan and Theo since they were
> part of the original sexp navigation discussion.

FWIW, we have both `forward-list` and `forward-list` and the new
behavior you suggest sounds closer to the historical behavior of
`forward-list` than `forward-sexp`.

        Stefan