From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Code navigation for sh-mode with Tree-sitter Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:57:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1B9F9B3A-A757-4A65-9653-CD0112EB8895@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5198"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Yuan Fu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?Q?Jo=E3o?= Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 06 23:58:08 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 1p2gt5-0001AS-6x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 23:58:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p2gsU-0001SJ-1L; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:57:30 -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 1p2gsS-0001SA-Py for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:57:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p2gsQ-0005l3-8l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:57:28 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2751D100126; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:57:24 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41EBF100084; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:57:22 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1670367442; bh=pZ5zW728OhUZqYvQ6a9jVWgcnT+6v/Qfr+a/lXUOS8Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=f8gjZ0WfRl8feNgjMdJt2Ju9SxszHqDdly4sa7RYS1A+d8dMTwf+zceUYQ7G398Sv tUJVR2ELh3Kxj9TS31Jtju/WjffOd51b+mswOgTYXl83bfOI6QyiTFoYsWST0KBRQ0 ZqVu7d/4ZXmxSLoxj4rRdVDqQd9+8xsoq1NkzkVn1U5RkxlpIuHk4tGNo4XgmcOYob YIJHU0c5B3TBHnUWmiaaL2+Fa2c2VmOJMFXXrf5xvePZSurf6R8JP+yK4viDfjjqP2 DFEZp07XOdTzg+Xz/Pmx1db0Pv94s2N6OunOO5vUwTsZr1neT3hBhrTW3jKGgG7IQm x+HAQV3iuiY5Q== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FE68122557; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:57:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:35:57 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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:300991 Archived-At: >> However, if those functions are bound to `beginning-of-defun-function' >> and `end-of-defun-function', > > Could you clarify? > `beginning-of-defun-function' is a variable holding a function. > Keys can be bound neither to that variable nor to the function it holds > (because it's not a command). > And functions usually aren't "bound" either. Ah, I think I get it. You mean your set the `[EB]OD-function` variables to your two functions/commands, right? To figure out whether the problem is inside `end-of-defun` or in the way `[EB]OD-function` are expected to behave, you'll have to single-step through `end-of-defun`, I think. Stefan