From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: An anonymous IRC user's opinion Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:44:35 +0200 Message-ID: <86ttbzojho.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86ses4sglw.fsf@gnu.org> <86fro4sddd.fsf@gnu.org> <6ac73c67-cb2d-48ef-8f1d-683c5335aba5@gutov.dev> <8634k4s2r2.fsf@gnu.org> <082b0388-b3a1-4523-9f9b-5ead4b110e11@gutov.dev> <86plmrtemx.fsf@gnu.org> <7aa4a684-3374-4d0f-8efc-c4df29337c5e@gutov.dev> <86cyirtahu.fsf@gnu.org> <556779b3-9308-4fd3-9050-bf9c49658cd1@gutov.dev> <864j43t8t9.fsf@gnu.org> <4cc676e8-cac5-4348-99b0-243baf74687e@gutov.dev> <8634jnt5e3.fsf@gnu.org> <4864104c-cb23-4356-ad89-2fea111db66c@gutov.dev> <86ttc2rrh8.fsf@gnu.org> <86cyipsp94.fsf@gnu.org> <9cd17f8b-f88c-49f6-9024-0b6d297e18ac@gutov.dev> <867c8xsmri.fsf@gnu.org> <566ac897-ea5e-4141-bcb3-306d43c9118a@gutov.dev> <865xohrvfa.fsf@gnu.org> <86wmgwnyle.fsf@gnu.org> <178dfc7f-bc2d-4e3b-8417-a616ccc0eef3@gutov.dev> <86v7wgnxlz.fsf@gnu.org> <01d83ec8-c02b-4806-8764-38dc89a89125@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18301"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: johan.myreen@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 22 07:45:47 2024 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 1tENQJ-0004cG-A5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:45:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tENPX-0001oV-Ee; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:44:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tENPV-0001oM-5I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:44:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tENPU-0007yz-Lh; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:44:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=TeoOyfo5S7EKjcSOr90dWZN7jKucNzCac/vnSVkjyKE=; b=YDEIiHwV+68X BU0mZB4EB7/7AIBNRDVkYv/U8dEq8J7aTwvHZv73+WF/1v+/4D+6YInAG158sAx0vIX46l3S2WI+M QMTX1kxe7/8CmLYs9uBELrGkhQIRemJzhYX9j0sSkMka7eUNZLx5bSfOAD9tAwqyGe+PkVYQcmDJU rH0tNLXI8Pn2Cpdj58aSQ91O+7X5+zJSyaGXdahsFYEEUDQ769suRd19lB7VGFpu8MaaTFT4/yjH2 RPQDYfpjE1gcvcI082R6oLnA5zMeGs65eQoM41BtWnDhotw/YOiSuhvF4h+nICIoyEJ4qD915cBQG 5CtGPpohqCmdMieIaZja6g==; In-Reply-To: <01d83ec8-c02b-4806-8764-38dc89a89125@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:56:41 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325570 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:56:41 +0200 > Cc: johan.myreen@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 21/11/2024 22:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:11:48 +0200 > >> Cc: johan.myreen@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >> On 21/11/2024 22:03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> > >>>> It would be nice to understand the minimum requirements to replace the > >>>> current approach. > >>> > >>> If you think that I have all of them figured out, you are wrong. > >>> Coming up with such requirements is not easy, and should probably be a > >>> team job. I will try, when I have time, to post a list of what I > >>> think should be part of those requirements, but feel free to beat me > >>> to it. > >> > >> Well, the thing is that I figured the patch already covers roughly the > >> same area as the current capabilities (while removing certain downsides). > > > > I don't understand what you want to say here and how it is relevant to > > your request to see the minimum requirements. > > If my patch covers all that we already support (or will cover after > minor updates), and removes certain problems, then we could agree to > install it, couldn't we? Is this what you think is the answer to what I asked N emails ago, viz.: >>>>>> I'm fine with that idea, but it'd seem like a change in paradigm. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, indeed. So I think it has to be an optional feature, and we >>>>> should offer more "direct" ways for expressing such preferences. >>>> >>>> Such as a user option called treesit-enable-modes? >>> >>> Something like that, yes. Because no better idea was presented. >> >> Take a look at the patch, then? > > I did. What's the next step? To which your response was: > It would be nice to understand the minimum requirements to replace the > current approach. But now you seem to say that the next step is to consider installing your patch? Or did I again misunderstand? > >>>> I have proposed an implementation of a "more proactive way". If it seems > >>>> insufficient to you, perhaps you could describe missing scenarios that > >>>> are supported with the the current approach. They might be easy enough > >>>> to add (or explain how they are supported already through other means). > >>> > >>> I already did: IMO we should have user commands to tell Emacs that the > >>> user wants to use these modes, not only suggestions by Emacs to use > >>> them, triggered by visiting files. > >> > >> "Suggestions by Emacs to use them" is a different feature (implemented > >> by Philip K. in his branch), it's not what my patch does. > > > > I didn't say it did! The "quote from my previous email" was about the > > suggestions by Emacs proposal, and I wrote that because you asked > > whether the branch could be the solution for letting users express > > their will to use TS modes. > > If we settle on the decision that it doesn't, then it might be sensible > to decide on the replacement for the "core" functionality first, and > then review Philip's branch as an optional feature. I guess it is still unclear, so let me say once again: Philip's branch is a nice feature, relevant also to this issue, but it can only be an opt-in feature. Therefore, we need another solution to be the main/default one, which replaces the current messing with auto-mode-alist and major-mode-remap-defaults. That other solution could be based on the patch you posted. I hope my views on this are now clear enough. > That's what my patch aims to do, to be the replacement for the > capabilities we currently have, but in a more "ecological" way. And add > a user option, like I think you requested. Agreed. So I'm asking again: what is the next step? Should we start a new discussion about replacing (on master) the current implementation with a command based on your patch? One thing that I think is missing in your patch is a way to go back to use the non-TS modes (where they are available). But maybe people don't think we should have that? Another thing that seems to be missing is a command to enable just one TS-based mode, not all of them.