Ok that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up for me, your fix looks
good. I'm loving this package!

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 20, 2023, at 2:22 PM, nvp <noah.v.peart@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That fixes the problem!
> >
> > However, the reason I initially put the reset inside the `(unless
> (buffer-live-p treesit--explorer-buffer) ...)`
> > in `treesit-explore-mode` was b/c it looked like there was an
> optimization happening in
> > `treesit--explorer-refresh` where it does this check
> >
> >            ;; If we didn't edit the buffer nor change the top-level
> >            ;; node, don't redraw the whole syntax tree.
> >            (highlight-only (treesit-node-eq
> >                             top-level treesit--explorer-last-node))
> >
> > I don't know if that is something you'd want to keep, but just pointing
> it out in case.  I think
> > the initial patch works as well, but still allows that check to work
> when the explorer buffer hasn't
> > been killed.
>
> Oh that’s fine, treesit-explore-mode always wipes everything and start
> from a clean slate. That optimization is for when the user moves point in
> the source buffer when explore-mode is on. If you’d like to send a patch
> that does roughly what I did in the patch I sent, I’d love to merge it.
> Otherwise I can fix it myself, too.
>
> The initial patch could be a bit confusing to the readers since it sets
> last-node twice, and it’s not clear why.
>
> Thanks,
> Yuan