Re: Make all tree-sitter modes optional

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 16/01/2023 09:43, Theodor Thornhill wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov<dgutov@yandex.ru>  writes:
>
> > On 15/01/2023 16:01, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > You will
> > > see that where possible, just loading a TS mode modifies
> > > auto-mode-alist if the tree-sitter support for that mode is available,
> > > whereas for other modes auto-mode-alist is modified only when the mode
> > > is actually turned on successfully for the first time.  This is
> > > because some of the TS modes have their own *.el files, whereas others
> > > share a .el file with other modes, and so loading that file doesn't
> > > necessarily means the user wants to use the tree-sitter based mode.
> > If we*are*  going to do this (make all ts mode strictly optional), I
> > don't think either of this is a good idea: for a given foo-ts-mode, the
> > user might already have an auto-mode-alist entry configured with another
> > mode (third-party or not), and they will likely 'M-x foo-ts-mode' to try
> > how well it works (or doesn't).
> >
> > Having auto-mode-alist modified automatically can come as a surprise
> > either way.
> >
> > Note the this is different to having the auto-mode-alist entries set up
> > from the outset, because the user's alterations override those.
> >
> > We can drop the auto-mode-alist alterations from ts modes altogether, to
> > bring them back when we do decide to enable them by default.
> I'm fine with either, but I understood your proposal to just remove all
> the auto-mode-alist additions for emacs-29, then let users config that
> themselves.

My preferred course of action was to keep things as-is, but since that's 
not in the cards, the proposed alternative for emacs-29 was to indeed 
remove the auto-mode-alist additions entirely, to keep things simple.