[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Turing on tree-sitter

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Turing on tree-sitter
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:22:48 +0300

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>   emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:26:55 +0000
> > +1 for this, but also add a third possible value to per-mode customs
> > that keeps tree-sitter always off for the mode. That way someone can
> > enable tree-sitter for all but that mode. Are there precedents for
> > such ternary variables? nil, t, and 'never?
> Is there a reason we can't use a minor mode?  Something like
>         (add-hook 'python-mode-hook #'treesit-mode)
> or a list
>         (add-to-list 'treesit-modes 'python-mode)
> ?

We could, if a minor mode is justified.  When this was previously
brought up, someone said the justification for a minor mode was too
weak in most cases.  But maybe we should revisit that idea.

reply via email to

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