Re: Plug treesit.el into other emacs constructs

[Perry Smith <pedz@easesoftware.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1635 bytes --]



> On Dec 13, 2022, at 13:53, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> I mean, what construct is each one expected to jump over?
>> 
>> In my book "sexp" movement should jump over subtrees of the AST.
> 
> It’s pretty hard to judge which subtree to move over at a given point in an AST. For example, when point is at | in the following text:
> 
> (|X.y(z), alpha)
> 
> Should point move over X, or X.y, or X.y(z)? All three subtrees has their beg=(point). A human can tell (and might disagree on) which unit to move across, but a program couldn’t tell. Without language specific knowledge, it can’t really decide.
> 
> Just a thought, but maybe we can let major modes define what’s an “abstract list”, and sexp-forward would move across the immediate children of abstract lists. Eg, abstract lists in C would contain block, argument list, statement, etc. And in the example above forward-sexp would move across X.y(z) because it’s an immediate children of the enclosing abstract list, the argument list.

How about this:

Most languages have a well known precedence for operators and usually these are documented with words like “additive operators”, “multiplicative operators”, etc.

The difference between X, X.y, and X.y(z) I would say are likely known to the user.  In other words, they are probably thinking “I want to move past the function call” or more reasonably, “I want to move to the next parameter”.

With some thought, a keymap could be devised so that <prefix>-p would move to the next parameter, <prefix>-m would move past the multiplicative subexpression.


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]