[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#60555: 29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "la
From: |
Daniel Martín |
Subject: |
bug#60555: 29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter nodes |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Jan 2023 15:29:14 +0100 |
In the Elisp manual, under "37.3 Retrieving Nodes" there is this text:
We talk about a node being “smaller” or “larger”, and “lower” or
“higher”. A smaller and lower node is lower in the syntax tree and
therefore spans a smaller portion of buffer text; a larger and higher
node is higher up in the syntax tree, it contains many smaller nodes as
its children, and therefore spans a larger portion of text.
I think the concepts of nodes being "lower" and "higher" are more or
less clear, and the notation is similar to the one used in classic texts
about rooted trees. However, the concepts of "smaller" and "larger" are
not very clear to me. From the text, it seems that "lower" also means
"smaller", and "higher" always means "larger". Is that correct, or
"smaller" and "larger" are really orthogonal to "lower" and "higher"?
If that's the case, I think the text needs some clarification, ideally
with a brief example.
Thanks.
- bug#60555: 29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter nodes,
Daniel Martín <=