bug#62086: 29.0.60; ruby-ts-mode regressions

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Apr 12, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> On 12/04/2023 18:31, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>> On 12/04/2023 10:05, Yuan Fu wrote:
>>> Actually, would it make sense to define sexp as “anything but some very small punctuation and delimiters”?
>> Pretty much. If I understood you correctly.
>> E.g. in ruby-ts-mode identifiers and numbers are also sexps.
> 
> Allow me to update that.
> 
> From the previous threads, for ruby-ts-mode at least, we seem to have concluded that it's best to treat those nodes as sexps which have visible boundaries that are visible and don't overlay exactly the boundaries of the contained nodes.
> 
> For example, we now exclude statement nodes and binary expression nodes because both make forward/backward-sexp less obvious and predictable: you move point to the beginning of 'a + b', press C-M-f, and if the jump happens over the whole expression, this is just as likely to mismatch the user's intention (which might have wanted to only jump over 'a'). So these are the node we rule out.

User might as well want to move over the whole expression, since they can use forward-word if they want to move over smaller elements. But I guess that’s just personal preferences.

> The easiest choice would be to go back to treating only braces/brackets/parens are sexp delimiters, but in Ruby, at least, we have lots of constructs that are delimited with keywords (such as 'if', 'def', 'end'), so that doesn't work. Maybe it'll work better in C/C++, where you mostly need to be able to differentiate between different types of angle brackets.

To clarify, my point is to define sexp by exclusion rather than inclusion, ie, defining a set of nodes that are not sexp, rather than defining a set of nodes that are sexp. I mentioned delimiters because they are excluded from sexp, not because they delimit sexp.

Yuan