--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly |
|
Date: |
Tue, 29 Nov 2022 21:21:29 +0100 |
*** Welcome to IELM *** Type (describe-mode) or press C-h m for help.
ELISP> (set-buffer (get-buffer-create "a"))
ELISP> (insert "int main();")
ELISP> (require 'treesit)
ELISP> (treesit-node-children (treesit-node-child (treesit-buffer-root-node
'c) 0))
(#<treesit-node
(primitive_type)
in 1-4> #<treesit-node
(function_declarator)
in 5-11> #<treesit-node ";" in 11-12>)
This is expected
ELISP> (set-buffer (make-indirect-buffer "a" "b"))
ELISP> (goto-char (point-min))
ELISP> (insert " ")
ELISP> (set-buffer "a")
ELISP> (buffer-string)
" int main();"
ELISP> (treesit-node-children (treesit-node-child (treesit-buffer-root-node
'c) 0))
(#<treesit-node
(primitive_type)
in 1-4> #<treesit-node
(function_declarator)
in 5-11> #<treesit-node
(ERROR)
in 11-12> #<treesit-node ";" in 12-13>)
This is unexpected. If we had called '(insert " ")' in the base buffer
"a", we would have got
(#<treesit-node
(primitive_type)
in 2-5> #<treesit-node
(function_declarator)
in 6-12> #<treesit-node ";" in 12-13>)
Thanks for your hard work.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly |
|
Date: |
Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:41:04 -0800 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 15:13:19 -0800
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
>> 59693@debbugs.gnu.org,
>> miha@kamnitnik.top
>>
>> >> 1. Only allow base buffer to have parsers, no change is needed
>> >> for insdel.c, treesit_record_change can find the base buffer and
>> >> update its parsers. We can ask indirect buffers to use their base
>> >> buffer’s parser. Unless the base buffer is narrowed, I think it
>> >> will work fine.
>> >
>> > I think this is fine, but we need to document it.
>> >
>> >> I remember that there were a discussion along the lines of user-narrow vs
>> >> low-level narrow, what was the outcome of that discussion?
>> >
>> > Nothing in particular, and I don't think it's relevant. If some mode needs
>> > to widen, it can.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> Here is a patch that does #1.
>
> Thanks, a few minor comments for documentation below.
>
>> +If @var{buffer} (or the current buffer) is an indirect buffer, its
>> +base buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers uses their
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "use", in plural.
>
>> @@ -447,7 +455,9 @@ Using Parser
>> @defun treesit-parser-list &optional buffer
>> This function returns the parser list of @var{buffer}. If
>> @var{buffer} is @code{nil} or omitted, it defaults to the current
>> -buffer.
>> +buffer. If @var{buffer} (or the current buffer) is an indirect
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'd say more concisely
>
> If that buffer is an indirect buffer, ...
>
> And please add a cross-reference to the node where indirect buffers
> are described.
>
>> +buffer, its base buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers
>> +uses their base buffer's parsers.
> ^^^^
> "use".
>
>> + Parsers in indirect buffers: We make indirect buffers to share the
>> + parser of its base buffer. See bug#59693 for reasoning. */
>
> I'd rather have a short summary of the reasoning here than ask the
> readers to go to the bug tracker and read a long discussion. Just
> explain why indirect buffers present a problem for a parser, and then
> say that we decided to do this as the easiest, simplest solution.
>
>> +If BUFFER (or the current buffer) is an indirect buffer, its base
>> +buffer is used instead. That is, indirect buffers uses their base
> ^^^^
> "use"
>
>> +buffer's parsers. If the base buffer is narrowed, an indirect buffer
>> +might not be able to retrieve information of the portion of the buffer
>> +text that are invisible in the base buffer. Lisp programs should
>> +widen as necessary should they want to use a parser in an indirect
>> +buffer. */)
>
> Here I would remove the second sentence: it is appropriate for the
> manual, but is redundant in the doc string, since the next sentence
> says it all.
>
>> @@ -1329,7 +1345,10 @@ DEFUN ("treesit-parser-list",
>> Ftreesit_parser_list, Streesit_parser_list,
>> 0, 1, 0,
>> doc: /* Return BUFFER's parser list.
>> -BUFFER defaults to the current buffer. */)
>> +
>> +BUFFER defaults to the current buffer. If BUFFER (or the current
>> +buffer) is an indirect buffer, its base buffer is used instead. That
>> +is, indirect buffers uses their base buffer's parsers. */)
> ^^^^
> "use"
>
> Otherwise, LGTM.
Cool, I fixed those and pushed.
Yuan
--- End Message ---