[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun
From: |
Theodor Thornhill |
Subject: |
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun behavior |
Date: |
Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:59:25 +0100 |
Brian Leung <leungbk@posteo.net> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>>> 2. When point is anywhere in the first line of the class
>>> declaration, mark-defun highlights "void otherMethod()",
>>> instead
>>> of the entire class declaration.
>>
>> Yeah, I think I've fixed this in a patch I just submitted.
>
> Which commit are you referring to?
>
I believe it was the one I included as a patch here.
>>> 3a. When point is at the [*] in between someMethod and
>>> otherMethod, narrow-to-defun captures "void otherMethod()". I
>>> feel
>>> that since the methods inside the interface declaration have no
>>> bodies, it makes more sense to capture the entire interface
>>> definition if point is at [*].
>>
>> Maybe, but I don't believe this is wrong either.
>
> Let me rephrase my request. Consider the following example:
>
>> class Cow implements Animal {
>> public void animalSound() {
>> // The body of animalSound() is provided here
>> System.out.println("The cow says: moo");
>> }
>>
>> [*]
>>
>> public void sleep() {
>> // The body of sleep() is provided here
>> System.out.println("Zzz");
>> }
>> }
>
> Both the methods have bodies. If point is at the [*], I would like
> for narrow-to-defun to capture the entire class declaration, since
> point is not really contained in either method. (For this
> particular example, java-mode presently agrees with java-ts-mode.)
>
> Is there a clean way of ensuring that, when point lies between
> (and is not contained in) those two methods, point is not treated
> as if it were in one of those methods' tree-sitter nodes?
>
I understand. I think that either we need to tweak the
treesit-defun-type-regexp or make use of something like:
(treesit-node-on (point) (point)) in the code that searches for
beginning/end-of-defun.
That code should return what you want, right?
>>> 3b. Arguably, even if point were on the method declarations, we
>>> might still want to (as plain java-mode does) capture the
>>> entire
>>> interface definition, since body-less method declarations don't
>>> feel especially defun-like.
>>
>> Maybe. Can you try applying the below patch and see if this
>> changes
>> anything for you?
>
> It captures the entire interface definition only when I remove
> "method_declaration" (which we probably want to keep) from the
> regexp.
Yeah. But I believe Yuan is cooking on some code wrt
beginning/end-of-defun, so maybe we should just wait and see what he
comes up with.
Theo
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun behavior, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/07
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun behavior, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/21
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun behavior, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/21
bug#59853: 30.0.50; tree-sitter modes have unexpected beginning-of-defun behavior, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/22