bug#59686: 30.0.50; tree-sitter indentation in some loops and conditional statements is wrong

[Yuan Fu]

> On Dec 3, 2022, at 3:08 AM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I see, but at least it fixes common cases that I can think of right now, namely 
if, for, while. What are some other cases?

Yuan