Theodor Thornhill writes: > Theodor Thornhill writes: > >> Stefan Monnier writes: >> >>>> If this code is plugged into transpose-sexps we get this nice behavior: >>> >>> It's a bit different from what SMIE would do, but there's a lot of >>> overlap and when it's different it's arguably better, so sounds good >>> to me. >>> >> >> Great! >> >>>> Now forward/backward-sexp can actually work a little differently, as you >>>> suggest, or we can let it use the same "move over siblings"-semantic. >>>> In that case we don't even need the treesit-sexp-type-regexp variables to >>>> control this, I think. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> I'm not sufficiently familiar with the tree-sitter tree to foresee >>> precisely how it would affect `forward/backward-sexp`, but I think you >>> have a good enough understanding to make a good judgment at this >>> point :-) >> >> Great. I'll prepare a patch for this behavior, and we can discuss the >> forward-* commands after that. >> > > What do you think about this? Feel free to try it and let me know if > something is completely wrong :-) Now you can use 'arg' as well.