[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Nov 2022 09:05:12 +0200 |
> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 13:45:41 -0800
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
> emacs-devel@gnu.org,
> theo@thornhill.no
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 2022, at 9:52 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 09:17:11 -0800
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> >> emacs-devel@gnu.org,
> >> theo@thornhill.no
> >>
> >> If we are already renaming existing modes (cc-<foo>-mode), why don’t we
> >> use the generic name <foo>-mode for the virtual parent mode? It would be
> >> nicer if the generic mode (<foo>-mode) is an actual mode, with mode hooks,
> >> keycaps, etc, rather than simply a dispatch function.
> >
> > I already said that I prefer not to rename existing modes. Such
> > renaming will break too many init files and other Lisp programs.
>
> I guess we can at least try it for a bit?
"Try" in what way?
> Because hook, keymaps, etc, should just work, that’s the point of major mode
> inheritance, after all. C-native-mode will run all the setup for c-mode, plus
> setup for c-native-mode.
Renaming public symbols is BAAAAD! It causes breakage for many users and
Lisp programs. It will either cause large-scale renaming of hooks, keymaps,
etc., which will break user init files; or it will cause confusion (because
a hook for cc-FOO-mode will be called cc-mode-hook and not the expected
cc-FOO-mode-hook). And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Why cannot we have the solution we already discussed and agreed upon:
. modes that didn't exist before Emacs 29 will require tree-sitter
. modes that existed before Emacs 29 will either
- offer tree-sitter support as an optional feature, via a minor mode or
a defcustom; or
- add a completely new major mode with a different name that requires
tree-sitter
If you need to add a FOO-base-mode to make it easier to share between
tree-sitter and non-tree-sitter modes features that are common to both, it's
fine with me to add such *-base-modes, but they should not be in any
auto-mode alist, and should generally be only an implementation detail
mostly hidden from users.
What is the problem with the above? I thought we already agreed on that, so
how come this issue pops up time and again?
- Re: Suggesting that feature/tree-sitter be merged (was Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance), (continued)
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Yuan Fu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Po Lu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Stefan Monnier, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Yuan Fu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Yuan Fu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Po Lu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Yuan Fu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Yuan Fu, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/11/19
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/11/20
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/11/20
- Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/11/20