[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Mode names for C-like tree-sitter modes

From: Theodor Thornhill
Subject: Re: Mode names for C-like tree-sitter modes
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 07:34:48 +0100

On 14 November 2022 02:16:13 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks to Theo’s great work, we now have tree-sitter powered major modes for 
>C, C++, Java, JSON, CSS. Right now they are named c-ts-mode, c++-ts-mode, 
>java-ts-mode, etc. And c-ts-mode and c++-ts-mode inherits from a dummy mode 
>I think it’s fair to make C, C++ and Java modes independent, since all the 
>cc-mode options are invalidated when we use tree-sitter. However, their name 
>could be improved, IMO. But I can’t think of anything better than c-ts-mode :-)
>(neo-c-mode… just saying)

I agree and can't think of a better name either...

>c-ts-mode--base-mode should probably be a public mode, since the intention 
>(IIUC) is enable users to configure C and C++ together, by adding hooks to 
>this base-mode. So something like c-base-mode or c-ts-base-mode?


>CSS and JSON could be merged with current modes, I think. Css-ts-mode could 
>merge with css-mode, and json-ts-mode could be merged with js-json-mode. Or we 
>can just have a dedicated json-mode.
>Theo, WDYT?

That's fine with me. In any case I think we should remove tree-sitter support 
from js-json-mode (or merge them). I think there exist a json-mode  in both 
elpa and melpa, adding another isn't the best idea I think. 

Not sure what is best, really.

My vote goes to merging css and keeping others separate, but I don't have the 
strongest opinion there. 

I can prepare such a patch after we decide on something.


reply via email to

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