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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#73404: 30.0.50;
 [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not behave as expected in
 tree-sitter modes
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:53:54 +0300

> Cc: 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:56:35 +0100
> 
> In my opinion, that's not what `sexp' movement is.
> 
> Sexp movement is movement by balanced expressions -- and a fallback to
> word-like behaviour absent that -- and this is not that. It would be
> better to relegate this sort of thing to its own set of keybindings.

The term "balanced expression" is not well defined in languages other
than Lisp and Lisp-like ones.  It is clear what expected when point is
on a brace or a parenthesis, but entirely NOT clear when you start
from something else.  For example:

  int foo = bar + 2 * baz;

Suppose you start with point at "foo": what would you expect
forward-sexp to do? nothing?

> > We might need to add a user option so people can easily turn off
> > tree-sitter sexp movement, since it isn’t a strict upgrade from the
> > generic sexp movement—it’s more of a different flavored sexp movement.
> 
> It should be opt-in, not opt-out.

I disagree.  Moving by sub-trees is a natural generalization of sexp
movement for languages where parentheses and braces are rare and far
in-between.

Previous Next

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