[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: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#60555: 29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter nodes |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:58:06 +0200 |
> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 15:29:14 +0100
> From: Daniel Martín via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
> the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
>
>
> 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"?
They aren't orthogonal, AFAIU. The text actually says that "lower"
necessarily also means "smaller".