>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> Date: Thu, 02 Apr
>> 2020 12:01:38 -0400
>>
>> FWIW, re-reading over the discussions around emacs-tree-sitter of
>> the last few days, I must say I'm not proud: if I were a
>> contributor to tree-sitter and/or emacs-tree-sitter, all this
>> squabbling over how tree-sitter "should" work (from people who have
>> not been involved in either of those and don't have any practical
>> experience of how it performs or why it's designed that way) would
>> make me run away screaming and promising myself never to come back
>> to that mad house.

Eli> I actually think that this discussion brought up several
Eli> important issues and topics (and I don't mean my own messages)
Eli> that should be considered if such technology is to become part of
Eli> Emacs (and I very much hope it will).  Yes, there's quite a bit
Eli> of noise, as in any discussion, but that's inevitable.  The
Eli> alternative is to invent your own wheel each time, and make all
Eli> the same mistakes.

Eli> I remember a similar situation on the emacs-bidi mailing list 15
Eli> years ago when the bidirectional editing support for Emacs was
Eli> just a pipe dream.  Many of the ideas expressed there I tossed,
Eli> but some are now part of our implementation, and I'm glad I had
Eli> the opportunity to hear them.  I'm also glad that Gerd Moellmann
Eli> was there to provide his perspective on what would and what
Eli> wouldn't be viable, I would have never arrived at the current
Eli> design without his guidance, not without making several grave
Eli> mistakes anyway.

+1

This discussion have bring me food for thought.