bug#59662: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Add treesit--indent-defun

[Yuan Fu]

> On Dec 7, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 December 2022 22:40:31 CET, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 7, 2022, at 12:06 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Theodor Thornhill via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army 
>>>>>>> knife
>>>>>>> of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>>>>>>> casouri@gmail.com, 59662@debbugs.gnu.org
>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2022 13:33:35 +0100
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2 December 2022 22:09:55 CET, "Daniel Martín" <mardani29@yahoo.es> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Right - thanks.  However, this makes me wonder - should we really be
>>>>>>>>>> setting mark here? I see that c-indent-defun does not, and it feels
>>>>>>>>>> weird that indenting adds to the mark ring.  What do you think?  My
>>>>>>>>>> first patch used
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> (indent-region
>>>>>>>>>> (treesit-node-start node)
>>>>>>>>>> (treesit-node-end node))
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Which behaves similarly to c-indent-defun.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See attached patch.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion, but if we can indent without setting 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> mark, I think it'd be a cleaner command.  Specially if c-indent-defun
>>>>>>>>> doesn't set the mark either.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yeah, we don't need to set the mark. Thanks for the feedback :)
>>>>>>>> Theo
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Eli, do you have any opinion on this matter? Should we implement this
>>>>>>> function without using marks?  That will make the function a smidge
>>>>>>> bigger, but would not mess up the mark-ring.  I think that's desirable,
>>>>>>> at least.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMO, it is better not to set the mark, indeed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed, see attached patch.  What do you think, Yuan and Eli?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should we expose the internal helper I used, or maybe this function
>>>>> could just as well live in treesit.c?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Theo
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Very nice, I applied this patch with some changes to the function. I
>>>> think using treesit-beginning/end-of-defun is more robust.
>>>> 
>>>> Yuan
>>> 
>>> Thanks!  Would you mind describing why?
>> 
>> Yes, sorry. I’m planning to change treesit-beginning-of-defun and 
>> treesit-end-of-defun so they can behave differently according to user 
>> configuration, basically they can decide whether to skip nested defuns or 
>> not. If we use these functions rather than re-implementing their logic (to 
>> some extent) in c-ts-mode-indent-defun, any improvement to defun navigation 
>> would automatically benefit c-ts-mode-indent-defun.
>> 
>> Yuan
> 
> Thanks for explaining your rationale. 
> 
> By the way, there's an issue with the patch you applied:
> 
> void
> foo()
> {
>  ...
> }
> 
> If point is at the v in void, the current implementation will not reinvent. I 
> didn't get time to debug yet, though. Possibly that will be fixed after your 
> rework as well.

Ah, thanks, I’ll fix that. And I’ll ask for your opinion before making changes 
next time, however innocent I thought the change is :-)

Yuan