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

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: mickey <at> masteringemacs.org, casouri <at> gmail.com, theo <at> thornhill.no,
 73404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
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 20:05:53 +0200

>> The command is 'forward-list'.  With 'list' it will do in ts-modes
>> the same that 'forward-list' already does in non-ts modes.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I tried this now in c-ts-mode, and it seems to behave strangely in
> some cases.
>
> First, AFAICT it supports "lists" enclosed in "(..)", "{..}" and
> "<..>", but not "[..]".  Is that expected?  Why don't we support
> "[..]"?

This looks like a bug.  It would be nice if you posted an example.

> Next, it many times signals an error "No next group", which is less
> useful than it could be.  For example:
>
> w32_get_internal_run_time (void)
> {
>   if (get_process_times_fn)
>     {
>       FILETIME create, exit, kernel, user;
>       HANDLE proc = GetCurrentProcess ();
>       if ((*get_process_times_fn) (proc, &create, &exit, &kernel, &user))
>         {
> 	  return ltime (total.QuadPart);
>         }                              ^
>     }
>
>   return Fcurrent_time ();
> }
>
> If you put point on the semi-colon marked by "^", C-M-n signals an
> error.  Can't we instead move to the next "list" after
> "Fcurrent_time"?

'C-M-n' doesn't move to the next statement in c-mode,
since we need to support backward-compatibility.  The key
that moves to the next statement ignoring nested lists
in C modes is 'M-e'.

> Also, it sometimes "misses" what looks like a "list".  For example:
>
> s_pfn_Open_Process_Token = (OpenProcessToken_Proc)
> 			    get_proc_addr (hm_advapi32, "OpenProcessToken");
>
> If you put point at the beginning of the line, C-M-n moves to the end
> of the 2nd parenthesized group, not to the end of the first group.

Welcome to the twisty maze of tree-sitter grammars.  C-M-n is unable
to move to the first group because it's inside the node in the AST:

    (cast_expression "("
     type: (type_descriptor type: (type_identifier))
     ")"
     value: 
      (call_expression function: (identifier)
       arguments: 
        (argument_list "(" (identifier) ,
         (string_literal " (string_content) ")
         ")")))

Both the first and the 2nd parenthesized groups are inside the
"cast_expression" node.

> As for terminology: the Emacs user manual calls these "groupings
> delimited by parentheses (or whatever else serves as delimiters in the
> language you are working with)", or in short "parenthetical group".
> Why cannot we keep this terminology?  It sounds like it describes its
> subject as accurate as we can come up with.

So you prefer "group" over "list"?  Then 'forward-list'
should move over "group"?

Previous Next

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