Hey everyone.

This may or may not have been answered in an earlier thread about the 
subject, but I couldn't really find it, so if this email and question 
represents a duplicate: sorry in advance.

With that said, I'll get straight down to business.

While as a major-mode author, I can decide to use tree-sitter to 
implement key functionality, we don't expect end-users to (need to) have 
the same level awareness about the technology used to implement the 
modes they are consuming.

However end-users often want to customize Emacs based on major-mode 
agnostic properties of the current major-mode none the less. Examples 
are adding hooks for prog-mode, c-mode-common-mode (from cc-mode), etc. 
This may also apply to other third-party packages, in how they interact 
with buffers (if prog-mode do this, if text-mode do that, etc).

I expect these kinda of needs to arise for tree-sitter based major-modes 
sooner rather than later, where one may be able to leverage tree-sitter 
node-manipulation functions rather than use text-based equivalents.

But to be able to leverage tree-sitter based functions, one would first 
need to know that one is interacting with a tree-sitter based 
major-mode. And to customize one, one would need a hook.

So how do we plan to expose this to end-users and other developers?

Looking at (treesit-major-mode-setup), I can't see it leaving any traces 
to be reliably detected later. Should we add some (documented) 
buffer-local variables to be able to detect this later? Should we create 
a mostly empty minor-mode for easy detection and ability to add hooks?

Or does anyone have any other suggestions for how we can solve this 
user-facing need of tree-sitter?

--
Kind regards
*Jostein Kjønigsen*
jostein.kjønigsen.no <https://jostein.kjønigsen.no>
jostein@kjonigsen.net - jostein@gmail.com