Re: Remove js--treesit-backward-up-list or fix it

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Oct 29, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> (added back in emacs-devel)
> 
> Hi!
> 
>>> 
>>> ```
>>> const fooClient = new Foo(() => ({
>>>                           | // <---- point is there  
>>>                         })); 
>>> ```
>>> Which is not what we want.  If we can keep that correct behavior in any
>>> case I say we remove the hack.  We could make an anchor helper named
>>> something like 'parent-then-bol', but because there is no node here, we
>>> cannot find the parent.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
> 
>> 
>> I added a rule that fixes it. Actually, when there is no node at
>> point, parent is set to the smaller node that spans point, kind of
>> like the immediate “parent” of that point. I’ve added some explanation
>> in the manual.
>> 
> 
> Yes, It's probably a remnant from when the semantics were a bit
> different between the treesit-node-on and treesit-node-at.  I see it was
> never there in ts-mode ;-)

That was actually deliberate semantic (which I forgot to document), I broke it when introducing the new semantic for treesit-node-at...

> 
>>> 
>>> However, there are some problems with the newest revisions.  During
>>>     })
>>>     .catch((r) => {
>>>       if (r.status < 200 || r.status >= 300) {
>>>         console.log(r);
>>>       }
>>>     });
>>> };
>>> ```
>> 
>> Yes, sorry. I was naive with my implementation. Now it should be fixed.
>> 
> 
> Absolutely!  Great work!
> 
> However... Try creating a js-mode buffer and type:
> 
> ```
> const foo = foo(() => {});
> ```
> 
> Because of all the stuff we set before we init tree sitter we get a
> super unwanted behavior of the cursor jumping back to indentation for
> every () {} etc. This is because of these settings, which are IMO pretty
> bad defaults:
> ```
>  (setq-local electric-indent-chars
> 	      (append "{}():;," electric-indent-chars)) ;FIXME: js2-mode adds "[]*".
>  (setq-local electric-layout-rules
> 	      '((?\; . after) (?\{ . after) (?\} . before)))
> ```
> 
> This could just be something forgotten in the indent implementation, but
> in my book this is yet another example for why we shouldn't init like
> this ;-)

I don’t have anything intelligent to say about the init process (except that we definitely need a way for js2-mode to turn off tree-sitter setup made by js-mode even if it is enabled by the user), but I fixed the indent problem you observed :-)

Yuan