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

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: mickey <at> masteringemacs.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>, 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: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:07:28 -0500

> The main problem with empty opening and closing keywords is that
> nodes from different levels all end up at the same position,
> and currently treesit prefers a higher-level node.  This means
> that the sequence of `C-M-f C-M-b` is not idempotent anymore:
> `C-M-b` might jump to the start of a higher-level node.

It's never been idempotent, tho, e.g. in cases like:

    ;; Starting from before this comment
    ;; `C-M-f C-M-b` will end up after it.
    (hello world)

or

    + x

But indeed for list operations in indentation-based languages like
Haskell/Python/Coffeescript/YAML, we're faced again with the fact that
a closing LF can close several nested lists, so when going backward
there is some amount of ambiguity (and I'd argue that it's preferable
(and closer to the historical behavior) to choose to jump less far,
e.g. so that `C-M-n C-M-p` never moves backward).

> Also in treesit.el, forward-sexp and forward-list could share the
> same implementation.

[ I assume you mean "share *some* of the implementation", rather than
  being literally aliases of each other.  ]


        Stefan

Previous Next

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