Re: Tree-sitter integration in python.el

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Oct 10, 2022, at 12:16 AM, Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat,  8 Oct 2022 at 14:06, Yuan Fu wrote:
> 
>>> To me, the biggest problem with font-lock-maximum-decoration is that few
>>> major modes bothered to implement levels.
>> 
>> That’s their choice. If no one complains it’s not a problem ;-)
> 
> Well, I'm complaining now and I think you can solve this :-).

Of course, within my reach I try to stratify font-lock into levels. I meant major modes not in core. 

> 
>>> It's exactly the opposite: since you are designing a new systems, you
>>> can create a much nicer customization mechanism on the lines of
>>> font-lock-ignore.  For instance, one could select fontification rules
>>> based on the affected node type.
>>> 
>>> The “decoration levels” feature can then build up on this, with the
>>> advantage that it would be consistent across languages and require no
>>> extra effort from the major mode developer.
>> 
>> It’s a nice idea, but in tree-sitter, different languages tag
>> differently, it could be “function_definition” in python but
>> “function_declaration” in C, etc. So it is not consistent across
>> language. Also, it is often more complicated than a single tag like
>> “function_identifier”, but rather a nested structure like
>> (function_definition (identifier)).
> 
> One suggestion then is to allow attaching some “metadata” to the
> fontification rules in `treesit-font-lock-rules'.  For instance,
> declare that a rule has :kind function or :level 2.

I’ve added support for :level in treesit-font-lock-rules, yes ;-)

Yuan