[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnin
From: |
Yuan Fu |
Subject: |
bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:36:00 -0800 |
> On Jan 20, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 January 2023 23:11:44 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2023, at 8:07 AM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 January 2023 16:17:22 CET, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
>>>>> Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, casouri@gmail.com, 60961@debbugs.gnu.org
>>>>> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:43:33 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I can either just make sure that no modes require across modes, or
>>>>>>> make that "lib" right now. What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to the "lib" method. Mostly because several modes, including
>>>>>> some that are unrelated to C, want the code which was written for
>>>>>> C/C++, and so it is possible that there's some general feature here
>>>>>> waiting for us to refactor the code -- in which case perhaps the code
>>>>>> should be in treesit.el?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, how come JS, Rust, and Typescript all want comment-related setup
>>>>>> that was written for C?
>>
>> Because they all have C-like syntax, so they have the same setup for
>> indenting and filling block comments, for example.
>>
>>>>>> If this is just a coincidence, then perhaps
>>>>>> duplicating the code is a better idea, but if there's some underlying
>>>>>> commonality, we should have common code in treesit.el, or maybe in
>>>>>> some c-ts-common.el?
>>
>> c-ts-common.el sounds good to me.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can start by moving it into treesit.el, then we can maybe extract
>>>>> something out later. Sounds good? I can do it tonight, unless any of
>>>>> you object :)
>>>>
>>>> SGTM, but let's hear from Yuan before you start working on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Thumbs up
>>
>> I’d prefer c-ts-common.el over treesit.el, since they only apply to C-like
>> languages. There is no harm putting them in a separate file, right? I wrote
>> some commentary in c-ts-mode, which notes all the shared functions and
>> variables.
>>
>> Yuan
>>
>
> Ok, should I do it or you? :)
>
> Theo
The honor is yours :-)
Yuan
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Robert Pluim, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Yuan Fu, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings,
Yuan Fu <=
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/20
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/21
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/21
- bug#60961: 29.0.60; Compiling emacs-29 without treesitter outputs warnings, Theodor Thornhill, 2023/01/21