[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SPAM UNSURE] Maybe we're taking a wrong approach towards tree-sitte

From: Yuan Fu
Subject: Re: [SPAM UNSURE] Maybe we're taking a wrong approach towards tree-sitter
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:21:39 -0400

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 7:12 PM, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> 
> wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>> From: Andrei Kuznetsov <r12451428287@163.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:48:18 +0800
>>> Cc: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>> Manuel Giraud <manuel@ledu-giraud.fr> writes:
>>>> I too did not follow the tree-sitter discussion closely. But AFAIU,
>>>> tree-sitter provides tools to generate a parser (in C) from a grammar.
>>> If that is the case, it certainly seems grave! I don't think an Emacs
>>> that requires source modifications for extending vital editing
>>> functionality is a good idea.
>> TS's code is written in plain C, and doesn't require any regeneration
>> or source modifications.  Anything else is misunderstanding.
> That's true for the common TS runtime, which implements the parser and
> error recovery, but the code for each language, that builds the LR parse
> table and some other data structures, is generated in C from a grammar
> file written in javascript, and must be linked into Emacs somehow.

Languages don’t need to be linked into Emacs. They can be in dynamic modules.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]