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

From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.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 13:13:53 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> 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?
>

I expect it to behave as it presently does: default to word-like
behaviour such as M-@ / M-f etc.

Balanced expression is not well defined, de jure, but it is in
practical terms, making it de facto rather well understood and
supported. It behaves reasonably consistently across languages, and I
use *-sexp commands thousands of times a day in a wide range of major modes and
contexts, both in code and also prose.

Most people who use *-sexp (or *-word commands for that matter) in
major modes come to recognise how they work and know what happens to
the text/point in their buffer before they run them.

I would challenge anyone, given even small samples of code, to do the
same with the current TS only implementation.

>> > 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.

Yes, if one can intuit the sub trees' structure, which is not so
simple; and if the selection of commands are sufficiently expressive
enough to let you navigate the tree. I am not sure they are.

The CSTs are deep, wide, and nodes' ranges frequently overlap; they
are multi-dimensional structures that map to a simple 2-dimensional
'grid' in your buffer. Making heads or tails of that is no easy feat.

Previous Next

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