From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unifying "foo-mode"s and "foo-ts-mode"s Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:45:54 +0000 Message-ID: <878rio99ot.fsf@posteo.net> References: <877cyagmti.fsf@posteo.net> <831qoi85u7.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt76f4n4.fsf@posteo.net> <83sfgy6l0n.fsf@gnu.org> <877cy9b1k0.fsf_-_@posteo.net> <87wn69oy1c.fsf@thornhill.no> <87edsh9gzn.fsf@posteo.net> <87tu1dowpp.fsf@thornhill.no> <87o7rl7x4i.fsf@posteo.net> <74FE4DBA-D1B0-4E68-BBE5-FDB96AD3E88D@thornhill.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14713"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Yuan Fu To: Theodor Thornhill Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 30 16:46:17 2022 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 1pBHaL-0003aR-EZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:46:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHa5-0002Ue-UE; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:46:02 -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 1pBHZz-0002Tm-Db for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:45:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pBHZx-0002Z7-Cv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:45:55 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BDDB240105 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:45:51 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1672415151; bh=B0Fvwx6TlVzKW/TeH54oDOqJriG90foy1zdLR4JMX+Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=bIICZ6OM8MyLv9cYxI7OXVnXHoLLcXlYu757oy792/m+t+kSLJphDzxteKpjXzTFF 6ynS2nSva8cDbqtVQVniELIKJqxRMJaW+eDDh4kkqLLgHMlNmocohTteRqp+U22lDp +ak/WjZxng3O+QOmdt5HgKhYEPxuQ5la2A/XFlnZ68jz9O1QEsctkiFBZX9yBeldFm QlCCX8hWnoC+ipk8vaPblj9pKRhMFDAPcwaYAyNo17zHaR9HYrqbAbYuVzl8lbyrdw 0kD50t6vfS9pyF1gM33DJUKPT+EWAS5cpAdLrVMAXTPAWi/fCAyT5N+vOriNaZJ1jd 1hSPMoffaH3nA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Nk8jm22vyz9rxG; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:45:48 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <74FE4DBA-D1B0-4E68-BBE5-FDB96AD3E88D@thornhill.no> (Theodor Thornhill's message of "Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:24:56 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:302119 Archived-At: Theodor Thornhill writes: > On 30 December 2022 16:02:37 CET, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >>Theodor Thornhill writes: >> >>> Philip Kaludercic writes: >>> >>>> Theodor Thornhill writes: >>>> >>>>> Philip Kaludercic writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You can try. I would like to start a full feature freeze in a day or >>>>>>> two, so I'm not sure you will have enough time. And it isn't like we >>>>>>> didn't try various approaches during the past two months, so frankly I >>>>>>> don't think that a better way even exists. But if you come up with >>>>>>> some very bright idea, who knows? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have attached a sketch of my proposal with support for Python. >>>>>> Instead of a separate python-ts-mode, we regulate tree-sitter support >>>>>> using a user option `treesit-enabled-modes'. It can either be a list >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> IIUC this will make all other config run before the treesit-related >>>>> code? >>>> >>>> If that is the problem, that we can solve that by re-adjusting the order >>>> in which the expanded code occurs. >>>> >>>>> In that case I think this cannot work, because we _don't_ want to >>>>> set all the before/after-change functions many modes set, for example. >>>> >>>> What exactly is the issue here? Can't we overwrite it again if >>>> necessary? >>>> >>> >>> For example the CC modes set up lots of functions in the mode init, many >>> of which override things like '*-function' variables, that if either not >>> overriden explicitly by a treesit alternative or removed before mode >>> init will impact performance. There are some modes that will be worse >>> in this regard than others, but one of my earlier suggestions was to >>> just: >>> >>> (define-derived-mode foo ........ >>> >>> (cond >>> (use-treesit-p >>> (init-all-the-treesit-stuff)) >>> (use-hypothetical-future-thing >>> (init-all-the-hypothetical-future-stuff)) >>> (t >>> (init-all-the-other-stuff)))) >> >>This also looks good. >> >>> In this case we don't let any code bleed in between the modes, which IMO >>> is necessary. At least we should be very careful with _when_ it is ok >>> for such settings to bleed in. Things like comment-start/end etc can >>> bleed in just fine, but stuff like >>> >>> ``` >>> (c-init-language-vars js-mode) >>> (setq-local indent-line-function #'js-indent-line) >>> (setq-local beginning-of-defun-function #'js-beginning-of-defun) >>> (setq-local end-of-defun-function #'js-end-of-defun) >>> (setq-local open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start nil) >>> (setq-local font-lock-defaults >>> (list js--font-lock-keywords nil nil nil nil >>> '(font-lock-syntactic-face-function >>> . js-font-lock-syntactic-face-function))) >>> (setq-local syntax-propertize-function #'js-syntax-propertize) >>> (add-hook 'syntax-propertize-extend-region-functions >>> #'syntax-propertize-multiline 'append 'local) >>> (add-hook 'syntax-propertize-extend-region-functions >>> #'js--syntax-propertize-extend-region 'append 'local) >>> (setq-local prettify-symbols-alist js--prettify-symbols-alist) >>> >>> (setq-local parse-sexp-ignore-comments t) >>> (setq-local which-func-imenu-joiner-function #'js--which-func-joiner) >>> ``` >>> >>> Should absolutely not. >>> >>> Does that make sense? I don't think this is impossible, but my biggest >>> argument was that we need to keep things distinct, or at least be very >>> explicit on when we share code. >> >>Yes, I do understand this point, yet my impression has been that this >>was not always necessary. The relative complexity of cc-mode might >>necessitate a separate mode, but I don't see why that should be the rule >>instead of an exception? > > IIRC it was mostly because we wanted to start creating things instead of bikeshedding over these details. > > My thought process was to create separate modes now, and make a > facility to map a language to a mode implementation. For example, imo > it doesn't make sense for "the first" implementation to own a > language's namespace. c-mode should be able to leverage cc-mode _or_ > c-ts-mode, rather than the other way around. This is a good point, but as you say below this might be something that we should aim towards for Emacs 30. > At least during these months that seemed smart, because we have many > contributions now due to the simple nature of creating a foo-ts-mode. Some of which have been very superficial, leading to the dilemma that users will have themselves with: Do they want tree-sitter support or the features of a more complete and mature mode. > Surgically injecting tree sitter into existing modes is prone to > error, and requires quite deep knowledge of each existing mode's inner > working. > > So I'd just hold off and maybe create a nice facility for Emacs 30. > > Something like > > (setq major-mode-backend > '((c . cc-mode) > (c++ . treesit))) > > Then M-x c-mode would trigger cc, and c++-mode would trigger c++-ts-mode. > > And we keep the old implementations as the default until we know > tree-sitter, has no disadvantages and swap the default. No need to > deprecate anything or require config changes, imo. > > Theo