From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62333: 30.0.50; Issue with tree-sitter syntax tree during certain changes Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:57:19 +0300 Message-ID: <83r0tcbz8g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87fs9yur7r.fsf@gmail.com> <2fd8f2b8-d9c4-c825-a789-f2d42324859f@yandex.ru> <09539C5E-23DA-4B00-A3F6-873A41D6A2CE@gmail.com> <83h6uc549z.fsf@gnu.org> <665745A2-FDC8-45DE-BFF5-2F688FC85431@gmail.com> <491b788f-c3c3-4877-daa0-f515be9f3a17@yandex.ru> <83sfduelab.fsf@gnu.org> <8FC25A01-6934-43BB-899C-CA5926BEA3CF@gmail.com> <83jzz5c8ml.fsf@gnu.org> <83edpdc6sn.fsf@gnu.org> <1ca302bf-99dc-7f9e-8544-063064a1cb21@yandex.ru> <831qlcdisi.fsf@gnu.org> <398721ad-79b0-3f6d-97b3-4902d9bfbe39@yandex.ru> <83wn34c2qa.fsf@gnu.org> <3b3d82d1-f0f6-a768-a5db-8dc9386a5a34@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3959"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: wkirschbaum@gmail.com, casouri@gmail.com, 62333@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 25 16:58:20 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6Ha-0000k6-W3 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:58:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6HM-00074t-RC; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6HK-00074R-Hw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6HK-0003ix-AW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6HJ-0002ZW-TX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:58:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:58:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62333 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62333-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62333.16797598539837 (code B ref 62333); Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:58:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62333) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2023 15:57:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43290 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6Gr-0002Yb-2m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:57:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6Gp-0002YI-HU for 62333@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:57:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6Gh-0003W3-7F; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:57:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=UDVd2qMJm2Pe+5x2b6w6zvrwp/7aparRw5jN+YoRGGI=; b=GL0iftHCUbLB yB/ws15zcvqqQVeLyxr1lbljDx5frnWXw4F4BlsfZ4U6MpAlRdnljtXQntkf5l0KKmw8koRTUHlcQ Q/i49xk8Mrc0wHHoo3oBdV/RVlw/dn4ATO1ran2iRuTQd/a9h/FhO0EUodPLWqgVL45/ATkvUXrfV a/a5ImtQ+gGD/nAgJoDoC4y4VO0uSnXWx4PttroYh1XiC/JZfV011S0j4uuNfz5CsIy3/UWvGwzmX hQMQMPeWmw48yimIgD9KOmeK4np8EjQ1bk1GaexkP13z7rdQrX63uII2T4X7pO/TJA2hh9vNnuB33 mRKXfU1DkOogQSnXP6Rg+g==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pg6Gg-0003RN-Kt; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:57:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3b3d82d1-f0f6-a768-a5db-8dc9386a5a34@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 25 Mar 2023 17:25:17 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:258594 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 17:25:17 +0200 > Cc: wkirschbaum@gmail.com, casouri@gmail.com, 62333@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 25/03/2023 16:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:18:12 +0200 > >> Cc: wkirschbaum@gmail.com, casouri@gmail.com, 62333@debbugs.gnu.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >>> mixed-major-mode shouldn't be a problem. > >> > >> Why wouldn't it? > > > > Because the sexp ends inside the current mode's block. > > But if the mmm framework narrowed the region to the current mode's > block, widening will force tree-sitter to parse the whole buffer. No, because such a mode mode should already make sure this doesn't happen. > >> Okay. But do you advocate all uses of tree-sitter to (widen) first? > > > > No, just in sexp-movement functions, at least for now. If we discover > > this is need in many more situations, we might consider more drastic > > measures. But I don't think we are there yet. We've discovered just > > one such case, in just one such mode, and it's on master. We still > > have ample time to see how widespread this is. > > I'm not sure whether tree-sitter is going to be used with mmm-mode (or > similar) a lot, since it has its own provisions for mixing languages. > > But I'd also like to consider the other cases where we *don't* want to > widen first. Any of them come to mind? No, not off the top of my head. I think we should try this in this one case, and see if other cases come up.