From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:24:10 +0300 Message-ID: <838sjh2red.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o8sf3r7i.fsf@gnu.org> <2E218879-0F24-4A20-B210-263C8D0BEEA4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="64017"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: akrl@sdf.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Yuan Fu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 04:24:34 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jJ6Zu-000GZk-56 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:24:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59376 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJ6Zt-000607-7v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:24:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJ6ZO-0005bL-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:24:03 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57998) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJ6ZL-0003up-KJ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:23:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1529 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jJ6ZK-0008I0-Ub; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:23:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2E218879-0F24-4A20-B210-263C8D0BEEA4@gmail.com> (message from Yuan Fu on Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:14:02 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246072 Archived-At: > From: Yuan Fu > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:14:02 -0400 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, > Andrea Corallo > > Why not simply pass to tree-sitter the chunk that jit-lock is about to > fontify? > > Incremental parsing seems to be the preferred way to use tree-sitter—maintaining a syntax tree on the fly > and later query for information from it. I don't see how this contradicts my proposal of passing just the chunk that we need to fontify. The function that actually passes the portion of the buffer to tree-sitter can always extend the chunk in both direction to make it easier, like make sure it's a complete code block or something. IOW, our goal is not to build the syntax tree, it's to give tree-sitter enough information to allow us to fontify the part that's about to be displayed. We need to have tree-sitter play by Emacs rules, not teach Emacs to play by tree-sitter rules.