Re: Org lint and named source blocks

[Tom Gillespie <tgbugs@gmail.com>]

> By the way, wouldn't it be better to use tree-sitter rather than
> something else for the format grammar?

Not really since we are going to need more than one implementation
using a parser generator to avoid baking implementation specific
details into the spec by accident. This is true for more than just
the grammar as well. The complexity of tokenization, parsing,
expanding, etc, for Org means that we are going to need multiple
implementations to nail the behavior for any formal spec.

That said, we definitely want a TS implementation at some point.
See https://github.com/tgbugs/laundry/issues/1 for a recent
discussion about ways forward.

The implementation I'm working on should translate to TS without
too much work since both brag and tree sitter describe LR variants.
There may be some subtle differences, but nothing fundamental.

The issue for me is that I don't have the bandwidth to get started
with a full tree sitter implementation, especially because it is going
to need a custom scanner, and because you're effectively on your
own when it comes to reconstructing the output of the AST into the
actual internal representation of an Org file. I also have no idea how
to deal with nested parsers in tree sitter. I have some ideas about
how it might be done, but nothing concrete (see the linked issue
for more on that).

Best,
Tom