Re: treesit indentation "blinking"

[João Távora]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 3:26 PM Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> > I think it’s acceptable to say that users of ts-modes should enable
> > electric-pair-mode, since it’s based on a parser, after all.
>
> electric-pair-mode is a user option.  We shouldn't be mandating such
> things to users, they should be individual choices.

Fair enough.  But so is electric-indent-mode and its electric-indent-chars
which are problematic in c++-ts-mode and they _are_ enabled by default.

electric-pair-mode not only is unproblematic in c++-ts-mode (at least, as
far as we know) but is proven to be a good (though not perfect) defense
against the real problems posed by the default value of electric-indent-mode
and the default value of electric-indent-chars in c++-ts-mode specifically.

So it makes sense to either have both e-p-m and e-i-m or none (or at least
less of the second as has been suggested).  At least until the presumed
indentation bugs (if in fact they are bugs at all) are fixed (if in fact
there is an easy fix for them).

The current default state of c++-ts-mode makes little sense to me, it's
very uninviting and strange when compared to c++-mode _or_ other editors.

( Admittedly, not only for this reason, the C-M-f/C-M-b/C-M-a behaviour
is unlike anything I've ever seen in Emacs. )

> I've had to use a
> proprietary editor where e-p-m couldn't be disabled (or at least I didn't
> know how to), and I hated it.  Emacs should be better than such editors.

This comparison doesn't make sense to me because in Emacs it's easy to
disable it.

João