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

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: mickey <at> masteringemacs.org, casouri <at> gmail.com, theo <at> thornhill.no, 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#73404: 30.0.50; [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not behave as expected in tree-sitter modes
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 21:05:22 +0200

> From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
> Cc: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>   Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>,  73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 19:46:12 +0200
> 
> >> BTW, my initial intention was to add the thing 'list'.
> >> But then I discovered that (treesit-thing-next (point) 'list)
> >> uses the function 'list' instead of the thing 'list'.
> >> 
> >> However, the current 'sexp-list' as a two-word composite is too ugly.
> >> Now I found a better replacement: 'group'.  This word is already used
> >> in lisp.el such as in the docstring of 'forward-list':
> >
> > I don’t have an opinion on this.  Groups sounds a bit abstract, but so
> > does sexp-list.
> 
> Indeed, the right name is 'list'.  So let's use it.

Please don't change the terminology yet.  I'd like to try these
commands with some tree-sitter modes and see what names we could use
for them.  I didn't yet have time for that, but OTOH there's no rush.

Previous Next

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