bug#73404: 30.0.50; [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not behave as expected in tree-sitter modes

[Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>]

>> What should remain in 'treesit-thing-settings' are only grouping
>> constructs such as "parenthesized_expression" and "statement_block".
>
> Ah, this matches my idea of defining sexp in other languages as “repeatable
> construct/list-like construct”. We went with “every syntactic construct” at
> the time, which I didn’t object to, but I’m definitely happier with the
> repeatable construct approach. Including Stefan and Theo since they were
> part of the original sexp navigation discussion.
>
> My only concern is that would the result be a bit unpredictable/confusing
> when we mix the result of two logic together in such an involved way? We
> can push to master and try it out for a while. I use tree-sitter sexp
> navigation for work every day, albeit strictly for navigating list-like
> constructs—I use forward/backward-word for smaller navigation.
>
>> tries to go out of the current thing to its parent,
>> thus breaking the main principle that 'forward-sexp'
>> should move forward across siblings only.  But removing
>> this line fixed the problem:
>
> Thanks, LGTM.

Ok, so now pushed to master in such backwards-compatible way
that when a ts-mode doesn't define the 'sexp-list' thing,
then the existing 'sexp' is used.

Also added 'sexp-list' to c-ts-mode, js-ts-mode, ruby-ts-mode and
html-ts-mode.  Addition of 'sexp-list' to other ts-modes is underway.