[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59686: 30.0.50; tree-sitter indentation in some loops and conditiona
From: |
Theodor Thornhill |
Subject: |
bug#59686: 30.0.50; tree-sitter indentation in some loops and conditional statements is wrong |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Dec 2022 12:08:59 +0100 |
On 3 December 2022 11:48:34 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>> Bruce Stephens <bruce.stephens@isode.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 02/12/2022 08:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>
>>>> FWIW, this is an unusual style, so I see no catastrophe if it is not 110%
>>>> according to expectations. Users can easily fix that by tweaking their
>>>> BOLs
>>>> where important.
>>>
>>>
>>> The example I gave would be unusual, I think, but I'd argue that the
>>> situations where I saw the problem are quite natural.
>>>
>>> For example,
>>>
>>> } else if ( MYSTRCMP (attname, SOME_PREFIX_X400ADDRESS) ||
>>> MYSTRCMP (attname, SOME_PREFIX_X400) ) {
>>> FOO_ptr orp = foo_std2foo (val);
>>>
>>> or a function declaration with several arguments with types that are
>>> rather long.
>>>
>>> I agree it's not a critical bug but if there's no appropriate general
>>> fix it would be helpful to have some guidance for users to resolve our
>>> specific cases.
>>
>> This is the case I was thinking of. In the for-loop a grand-parent-bol
>> on compound_statement rule would match the 'for' keyword, so the
>> indentation will be correct, but this one will not, IIRC. I plan to dig
>> into this some more soon, but motivation left me a little on that issue.
>> Maybe we could make a preset like:
>>
>> ```
>> (seq
>> (parent-is "compound_statement") parent (parent-is "for_statement") bol)
>> ```
>>
>>
>> In other words, make other presets execute sequentially, move point,
>> check again, and if all are true, pick indent offset. Or allow multiple
>> captures, like so:
>>
>> ```
>> (for_statement @offset-anchor
>> body: (compound_statement (_) @to-indent))
>> ```
>>
>> Here the @to-indent capture would get the new indent level based on
>> treesit-node-start of for_statement.
>>
>> What do you think, Yuan?
>
>I think we can just test for the grandparent, there is an
>(undocumented) matcher n-p-gp which matches parent and grandparent.
>
>Yuan
Yeah I know, but that doesn't work in every case we see this behavior.