Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: casouri@gmail.com,  rpluim@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 15:25:13 +0800
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > That is correct, but your change removed only "we", and left "I"
>> > intact.  In any case, rephrasing to avoid pronouns doesn't necessarily
>> > force us to use passive voice.
>> 
>> Well, if you can, please suggest some better ways to do that.
>
> Compliance!
>
>> -   - It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  We put the syntax tree in the
>> -     parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.
>> +   - It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  The syntax tree is placed in
>> +     the parser object, and updating the tree is handled at the C
>> +     level.
>
> Here I'd suggest
>
>   It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  The syntax tree is part of the
>   parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.
>
>> -   - We don't expose tree cursor either.  I think Lisp is slow enough
>> -     to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor, though I
>> -     don't have evidence.  Also I want to minimize the number of new
>> -     types we introduce.  Currently we only add parser and node type.
>> +   - The tree cursor is not exposed either.  I think Lisp is slow
>> +     enough to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor,
>> +     though I don't have evidence.  Also I want to minimize the number
>> +     of new types we introduce.  Currently we only add parser and node
>> +     type.
>
> Here I'd suggest
>
>   It doesn't expose the tree cursor, either.  Presumably, Lisp is slow
>   enough to make insignificant any performance advantages from using
>   the cursor.  Not exposing the cursor also minimizes the number of
>   new types this adds to Emacs Lisp; currently, this adds only the
>   parser and node types.

Thanks, I'll use that text instead.