Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 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 :-)

Theo