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

From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, mickey <at> masteringemacs.org, 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: Re: bug#73404: 30.0.50; [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not
 behave as expected in tree-sitter modes
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 19:20:10 +0100

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

>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
>> Cc: juri <at> linkov.net, casouri <at> gmail.com, mickey <at> masteringemacs.org,
>>  73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
>> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:30:31 +0100
>> 
>> > Is this goal achievable in practice, given the sometimes radical
>> > differences between languages?  Maybe we only can have examples and
>> > some dwim-ish behavior in most cases?
>> 
>> I'm not sure if it is achievable or not, but I think it'd be nice to
>> avoid any "hand-waviness" to confuse us while we talk about
>> sexps/lists/etc. I could try to document thoroughly how lisp-modes and
>> cc modes implement these and see if we have some glaring discrepancies
>> between just those two?
>
> They are not "discrepancies", and certainly not "glaring", but there
> are differences.  E.g., in c-ts-mode, we support "lists" enclosed in
> (..), {..}, and <..> (but not [..], for some reason).  You will not
> find anything like that in Lisp-like languages.
>

I didn't mean to sound harsh, my apoligies.

> So, if we want to have a broader picture, we will need to try more
> modes.  Can you or someone produce an exhaustive list of all TS modes
> we have that implement these movement commands?  Then we could try the
> commands in each one of those modes and see if there are common
> patterns that we can name and describe.
>

Sure!

> For now, my conclusion was that (almost) every parenthetical grouping
> supported by the language grammar can be moved across with these
> commands.  But I only tried Lisp and c-ts-mode.

Yeah, absolutely. I think it is moving in the right direction. What I'm
thinking of is more in the line of standarization as a conscious effort,
not by consequence of convention. The reason being to help aid us when
discussing these issues. I feel we often attribute bugs to our
subjective meaning, perhaps because we are missing some clearer
structure in the expected behavior. I'm absolutely open to being wrong
here, though.


Theo

Previous Next

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