[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code
From: |
Po Lu |
Subject: |
Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Oct 2022 16:34:30 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 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.
Thanks, I'll use that text instead.
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, (continued)
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/27
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Robert Pluim, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code,
Po Lu <=
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Stefan Kangas, 2022/10/29