Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: casouri@gmail.com,  rpluim@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 15:25:13 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > That is correct, but your change removed only "we", and left "I"
> > intact.  In any case, rephrasing to avoid pronouns doesn't necessarily
> > force us to use passive voice.
> 
> Well, if you can, please suggest some better ways to do that.

Compliance!

> -   - It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  We put the syntax tree in the
> -     parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.
> +   - It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  The syntax tree is placed in
> +     the parser object, and updating the tree is handled at the C
> +     level.

Here I'd suggest

  It doesn't expose a syntax tree.  The syntax tree is part of the
  parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.

> -   - We don't expose tree cursor either.  I think Lisp is slow enough
> -     to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor, though I
> -     don't have evidence.  Also I want to minimize the number of new
> -     types we introduce.  Currently we only add parser and node type.
> +   - The tree cursor is not exposed either.  I think Lisp is slow
> +     enough to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor,
> +     though I don't have evidence.  Also I want to minimize the number
> +     of new types we introduce.  Currently we only add parser and node
> +     type.

Here I'd suggest

  It doesn't expose the tree cursor, either.  Presumably, Lisp is slow
  enough to make insignificant any performance advantages from using
  the cursor.  Not exposing the cursor also minimizes the number of
  new types this adds to Emacs Lisp; currently, this adds only the
  parser and node types.