From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master c69858b3f0: ; * lisp/treesit.el (treesit-ready-p): Guard against empty buffers. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: <166916717199.12853.3816069320355351676@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221123013252.46814C004B6@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <83o7sxzwhn.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27115"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 23 13:41:07 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oxp3q-0006o8-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:41:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxp3X-00051e-Ku; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxp3Q-000507-6c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oxp3N-0007Nk-Uw; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:39 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 790F51000EF; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B9B1C1000DF; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1669207233; bh=KjxADw7TOFpNkX2LgIfGlVuA6Z5hiuX56+xANdgqUCI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Vx19zKUhIS1u7qUMfyX6hGWSge5JodQs7TfSfZTFG7/mRSxlhtVMZsOR5CGajU84I pCMPrQtIVVjkhXnH98rIxvIf+WMlJfmn/9j5/chBqs7QBNp6lw2tw5K9lvn1bE+l0c ePrckCfcrXlsc/sjGsEvBa2McwCOFBDjfBbzHEhpAPEKEn8V+slhmrkO/UCfwnolQ6 8blD5zluRp8mJdB+DgPH+5/99T9hr1l/m1/3cKABnpf4k8GiU6KYaHvzhIqinZLVbE cs9bupQo7Wct0RJx+dE6vWRIzwdEreJEz+fLfZ3M2GRgJdrM+4YBNRuJ5Uh4TU9A9l GjWdUHyPnELRA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [104.247.241.157]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 789E212045B; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:40:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83o7sxzwhn.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:27:48 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:300390 Archived-At: >> > - (when (> (position-bytes (1- (point-max))) treesit-max-buffer-size) >> > + (when (> (position-bytes (max (point-min) (1- (point-max)))) >> > + treesit-max-buffer-size) >> >> I'd expect `treesit-max-buffer-size` to be compared to `buffer-size` >> rather than to buffer positions. > > Please tell more: what problems do you see with the above, and why? It is > not easy to guess what's on your mind. I see 4 very minor problems: - the code is more complex than the obvious (> (buffer-size) treesit-max-buffer-size) - as a result of that complexity, we see that its original version had a bug :-) - it uses `position-bytes` which is an unusual function (because it exposes details of the internal representation). But my question was not so much pointing out a problem but trying to understand why we chose the more complex code. Stefan