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 #20 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 16:46:52 +0300

> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_RECEIVED,
> 	NO_RELAYS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
> 	version=3.4.2
> From: Mickey Petersen <mickey <at> masteringemacs.org>
> Cc: casouri <at> gmail.com, 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:13:53 +0100
> 
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >   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.

Then we just lost an opportunity to have more useful commands, because
we already have M-f and M-@.

> 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.

I think the ability to move by parse sub-trees is also very useful.

> 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.

That's just a matter of getting used to the new semantics.

> > 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.

There are enough situations where moving by words will also surprise
you.  For example, did you know that M-f stops when it finds a
character from a different script?  And yet we still use these
commands.

Previous Next

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