bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#60453: 29.0.60; treesit-range-rules throw an error without tree-sitt


From: Wilhelm Kirschbaum
Subject: bug#60453: 29.0.60; treesit-range-rules throw an error without tree-sitter
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2022 19:08:19 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.9.3; emacs 29.0.60


Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

From: Wilhelm Kirschbaum <wkirschbaum@gmail.com>
Cc: 60453@debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2022 18:50:31 +0200


Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Wilhelm Kirschbaum <wkirschbaum@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2022 16:53:08 +0200
>> >> >> With the following code without tree-sitter library: >> >> (defvar elixir-ts-mode--treesit-range-rules
>>   (treesit-range-rules
>>    :embed 'heex
>>    :host 'elixir
>> '((sigil (sigil_name) @name (:match "^[H]$" @name) >> (quoted_content)
>>   @heex))))
>> >> upon loading the mode I get the following error: >> >> treesit-range-rules: Symbol’s function definition is void:
>> treesit-query-compile
>> >> This can easily be mitigated with (when >> (treesit-available-p)...) >> but think it should function similar to how >> (treesit-font-lock-rules
>> work.
>
> Why does it make sense to protect treesit.el's code with
> treesit-available-p? You aren't supposed to use treesit.el > functions > when the tree-sitter library is not available. IOW, Lisp > programs
> that want to use treesit-range-rules and other functions from
> treesit.el should make the treesit-available-p test _before_ > that.

Okay, that makes sense.  I just saw this comment on

;; treesit.el#618
(defun treesit-font-lock-rules (&rest query-specs)
  ...
  ;; Other tree-sitter function don't tend to be called unless
;; tree-sitter is enabled, which means tree-sitter must be compiled.
  ;; But this function is usually call in `defvar' which runs
;; regardless whether tree-sitter is enabled. So we need this
  ;; guard.
  (when (treesit-available-p)

As treesit-range-rules also gets called with defvar and it is a
consistency issue. I think the reason why this has not popped up before is that no other modes I have seen uses treesit-range-rules yet and think it will probably catch people off guard in the future.

It's up to Yuan: if he thinks this is a good idea, he should feel free to add that test. But it's slippery slope, IMNSHO: we will very soon find ourselves adding such tests to every treesit.el function, just because some code somewhere calls that function without a prior test. IOW, IMO a single case of such callers is not enough to add a test.
But that's me.

Okay, I will add the checks before defvar anyways to keep things
consistent on my side. It does make more sense to me just to not have the guards in the first place as it creates false expectation they will be
everywhere.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]