* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-19 10:13 bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
@ 2022-12-20 8:32 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-21 4:08 ` Yuan Fu
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2022-12-20 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 60197; +Cc: casouri
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
> Hi, Yuan!
>
> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
> beginning-of-defun-function?
>
> I see you mentioned it is inteded to be used as a command, but surely
> both should be possible?
>
This will also affect things like mark-defun and friends. Should I
prepare a patch to fix this?
Theo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-19 10:13 bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-20 8:32 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
@ 2022-12-21 4:08 ` Yuan Fu
2022-12-21 5:58 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-21 6:50 ` Yuan Fu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yuan Fu @ 2022-12-21 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodor Thornhill; +Cc: 60197
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
> Hi, Yuan!
>
> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
> beginning-of-defun-function?
Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
remap the commands anymore.
> I see you mentioned it is inteded to be used as a command, but surely
> both should be possible?
Could you remind me where is this function defined? I should have
updated it when I changed the defun navigation implementation. (It was
broken by my change before the defun nav change which you noticed, I
thought I’m going to fix it with the new defun nav functions, but I
forgot...)
Yuan
[1] For example, a nested defun like this:
def parent:
(1)
def child:
return 0
(2) return 1
(3)
When point is at (1), end-of-defun calls beginning-of-defun-function
followed by end-of-defun-function to check if point is in a defun: if
point ends up after the starting point, then starting point is inside a
defun, and we can stop there. In this case, point ends up at
(3), because b-o-d-f goes to previous b-o-d, which is the beg of parent,
then e-o-d-f goes to (3), which is the end of that parent, and
end-of-defun stops at (3).
However, we should have gone to (2), which is the immediately following
end-of-defun.
Thanks,
Yuan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-21 4:08 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-21 5:58 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2022-12-21 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuan Fu; +Cc: 60197
On 21 December 2022 05:08:09 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>> Hi, Yuan!
>>
>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>
>Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
>that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
>navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
>In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
>beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
>remap the commands anymore.
>
>> I see you mentioned it is inteded to be used as a command, but surely
>> both should be possible?
>
>Could you remind me where is this function defined? I should have
>updated it when I changed the defun navigation implementation. (It was
>broken by my change before the defun nav change which you noticed, I
>thought I’m going to fix it with the new defun nav functions, but I
>forgot...)
>
>Yuan
>
It is in prog-mode.el, in the master branch. But the biggest issue now is that every function or command that relies on beginning-of-defun and end-of-defun is broken.
>
>[1] For example, a nested defun like this:
>
>def parent:
> (1)
> def child:
> return 0
>(2) return 1
>(3)
>
>When point is at (1), end-of-defun calls beginning-of-defun-function
>followed by end-of-defun-function to check if point is in a defun: if
>point ends up after the starting point, then starting point is inside a
>defun, and we can stop there. In this case, point ends up at
>(3), because b-o-d-f goes to previous b-o-d, which is the beg of parent,
>then e-o-d-f goes to (3), which is the end of that parent, and
>end-of-defun stops at (3).
>
>However, we should have gone to (2), which is the immediately following
>end-of-defun.
>
That depends on the tactic chosen, right?
>Thanks,
>Yuan
Are you sure this isn't compatible?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-19 10:13 bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-20 8:32 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-21 4:08 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-21 6:50 ` Yuan Fu
2022-12-21 7:42 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-22 5:00 ` Yuan Fu
2022-12-22 8:51 ` Yuan Fu
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yuan Fu @ 2022-12-21 6:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodor Thornhill; +Cc: 60197
Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>> Hi, Yuan!
>>
>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>
> Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
> that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
> navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
> In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
> beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
> remap the commands anymore.
I see the problem now... Many other functions uses
beginning/end-of-defun. I didn’t thought about that initially :-(
But I don’t want to make big changes to beg/end-of-deun, hmmm.
Yuan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-21 6:50 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-21 7:42 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2022-12-21 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuan Fu; +Cc: 60197
On 21 December 2022 07:50:04 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>
>>> Hi, Yuan!
>>>
>>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>>
>> Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
>> that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
>> navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
>> In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
>> beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
>> remap the commands anymore.
>
>I see the problem now... Many other functions uses
>beginning/end-of-defun. I didn’t thought about that initially :-(
>
>But I don’t want to make big changes to beg/end-of-deun, hmmm.
>
>Yuan
I think you can set the functions and remap, right? Maybe you can force the beginning-of-defun-function variant to choose the smallest scope as a default? Or just follow the same tactic the user set?
Theo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-19 10:13 bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-12-21 6:50 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-22 5:00 ` Yuan Fu
2022-12-22 7:48 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2022-12-22 8:51 ` Yuan Fu
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yuan Fu @ 2022-12-22 5:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodor Thornhill; +Cc: 60197
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
> On 21 December 2022 07:50:04 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Yuan!
>>>>
>>>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>>>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>>>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>>>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>>>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>>>
>>> Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
>>> that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
>>> navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
>>> In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
>>> beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
>>> remap the commands anymore.
>>
>>I see the problem now... Many other functions uses
>>beginning/end-of-defun. I didn’t thought about that initially :-(
>>
>>But I don’t want to make big changes to beg/end-of-deun, hmmm.
>>
>>Yuan
>
>
> I think you can set the functions and remap, right? Maybe you can
> force the beginning-of-defun-function variant to choose the smallest
> scope as a default? Or just follow the same tactic the user set?
Maybe, we can have beg-of-defun-function respect treesit-defun-tactic,
and end-of-defun-function simply jump to the end of the defun at point,
and remap the commands as we do now. I’ll experiment with that and see
if it works well.
Yuan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-22 5:00 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-22 7:48 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2022-12-22 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuan Fu; +Cc: 60197
Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>> On 21 December 2022 07:50:04 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Yuan!
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>>>>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>>>>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>>>>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>>>>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>>>>
>>>> Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
>>>> that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
>>>> navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
>>>> In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
>>>> beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
>>>> remap the commands anymore.
>>>
>>>I see the problem now... Many other functions uses
>>>beginning/end-of-defun. I didn’t thought about that initially :-(
>>>
>>>But I don’t want to make big changes to beg/end-of-deun, hmmm.
>>>
>>>Yuan
>>
>>
>> I think you can set the functions and remap, right? Maybe you can
>> force the beginning-of-defun-function variant to choose the smallest
>> scope as a default? Or just follow the same tactic the user set?
>
> Maybe, we can have beg-of-defun-function respect treesit-defun-tactic,
> and end-of-defun-function simply jump to the end of the defun at point,
> and remap the commands as we do now. I’ll experiment with that and see
> if it works well.
Sure! Do you mean some treesit-specific code inside of
beginning-of-defun, or just making treesit-beginning-of-defun callable
non-interactively?
Theo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-19 10:13 bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-12-22 5:00 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-22 8:51 ` Yuan Fu
2022-12-22 9:28 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Yuan Fu @ 2022-12-22 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodor Thornhill; +Cc: 60197
Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
> Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>
>>> On 21 December 2022 07:50:04 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Yuan!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems 'prog-fill-reindent-defun' is broken after the latest changes
>>>>>> to treesit-beginning-of-defun. The culprit is that we now use remap
>>>>>> instead of setting the beginning-of-defun-function. What is the
>>>>>> reasoning behind that change? Can't we just rely on the variable
>>>>>> beginning-of-defun-function?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, end-of-defun uses beginning/end-of-defun-function in a way
>>>>> that’s incompatible with nested defuns[1]. So if we want to support
>>>>> navigation nested defuns reliably we need to remap the commands instead.
>>>>> In the future (ie emacs 30), we can extend the current
>>>>> beginning/end-of-defun to support nested defuns, then we don’t need to
>>>>> remap the commands anymore.
>>>>
>>>>I see the problem now... Many other functions uses
>>>>beginning/end-of-defun. I didn’t thought about that initially :-(
>>>>
>>>>But I don’t want to make big changes to beg/end-of-deun, hmmm.
>>>>
>>>>Yuan
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you can set the functions and remap, right? Maybe you can
>>> force the beginning-of-defun-function variant to choose the smallest
>>> scope as a default? Or just follow the same tactic the user set?
>>
>> Maybe, we can have beg-of-defun-function respect treesit-defun-tactic,
>> and end-of-defun-function simply jump to the end of the defun at point,
>> and remap the commands as we do now. I’ll experiment with that and see
>> if it works well.
>
> Sure! Do you mean some treesit-specific code inside of
> beginning-of-defun, or just making treesit-beginning-of-defun callable
> non-interactively?
I played around, and it seems the best we can do is to simply setting
the b/e-of-defun-function. That’s also what cc-mode does. If cc-mode
does that for 20 years and no one complained, I think we are pretty
safe. Though we should still improve end-of-defun in Emacs 30.
So I did that :-)
Yuan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* bug#60197: 30.0.50; beginning-of-defun broken after new treesit impl
2022-12-22 8:51 ` Yuan Fu
@ 2022-12-22 9:28 ` Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2022-12-22 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuan Fu; +Cc: 60197
Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
> I played around, and it seems the best we can do is to simply setting
> the b/e-of-defun-function.
Yep!
> That’s also what cc-mode does. If cc-mode does that for 20 years and
> no one complained, I think we are pretty safe. Though we should still
> improve end-of-defun in Emacs 30.
>
Great news!
Thanks!
Theo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread