[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Code quality of some -ts-mode major modes

From: Philip Kaludercic
Subject: Re: Code quality of some -ts-mode major modes
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 15:49:15 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: ruijie@netyu.xyz,  casouri@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 15:20:49 +0000
>> >> The rule-of-thumb that I go by is that `if' is used if you have two
>> >> cases you are interested in, especially if you are interested in the
>> >> return value, while `when' is more "imperative" in style and indicates
>> >> to the reader that the code is being executed for a side-effect.
>> >
>> > That is your personal preference.  Objectively, there's nothing wrong
>> > with using 'if' that has no 'else' part.  So changing someone's code
>> > to use 'when' where 'if' can do, or vice versa -- replacing 'when'
>> > with a single sexp in the body with 'if' -- has no real justification.
>> Technically no, but I do hope not to be mistaken that there is a
>> convention (along the lines I gave above) here that goes beyond just my
>> personal preference.  CLTL even says[p. 166]:
> It is fine for you to prefer this convention, but we don't mandate it
> in Emacs.

Ok, in that case I was mistaken.  I have just seen a number of commits
that either just or also made this change, making it seem like
established knowledge.

>> > Because if we add that to the code, we will need to maintain that for
>> > the observable future to be correct.  Comments, even if they are
>> > outdated, don't need such level of maintenance.  
>> That could be resolved by either pinning a revision or instead of
>> cloning the repository to download a tarball of a tag.  In fact that
>> should make the system even more stable than the way I see it being
>> promoted around the web currently, that just maps languages to Git
>> repository URLs.
> It can be resolved in more than one way, but all of them mean
> additional maintenance burden, so I don't think we should undertake
> that.

If you think so, but at least we agree that one reference to a grammar
would be helpful.

>> >                                                  Moreover, the fact
>> > that a given grammar was used for testing doesn't mean another grammar
>> > will not work as well.
>> I don't know of any language with multiple independent implementations
> I do.  Indeed, most have just one.  But not all.

Could you give me an example that I could try out?

>> > Again, I explained the rationale many times here.  I can explain
>> > again, but is that really necessary?
>> You had previously said that you are opposed to raising an error (or am
>> I mistaken?), while the above comment says "we want this to signal and
>> error".
> No you are mistaken.  We do want this to signal an error if
> tree-sitter is not compiled in or the grammar is not available.

But it doesn't, or am I completely oblivious that

  (treesit-ready-p 'something-i-just-made-up)

just displays a warning?  The way I am currently reading/seeing the code
is that if tree-sitter and the grammar are available, then it will be
initialised but otherwise we just get a warning and a pretty plain mode.

>> > Help in reviewing patches when they are posted is also very welcome.
>> > It takes more than one pair of eyes to spot every bit that needs
>> > attention.
>> I'll try and do so when I notice one.  I have also been sketching out
>> support for a markdown-ts-mode to better understand the how tree-sitter
>> works, which could help.
> TIA.

Philip Kaludercic

reply via email to

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