bug#60555: 29.0.50; Some clarification is needed about "smaller" and "larger" Tree-sitter nodes

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Martín <mardani29@yahoo.es>
> Cc: 60555@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:44:55 +0100
> 
> >
> > I think these micro-changes are basically splitting hair, and the text
> > you propose will almost certainly be less clear for someone.  If the
> > original text is unclear, the way to fix that is to rewrite it in a
> > completely different way.  If you try explaining what exactly confuses
> > you, maybe I could come up with such a rewrite.  I cannot myself
> > understand what's unclear, because to me it sounds very clear and
> > simple to understand.  So I need your help.  Try to recollect what
> > confused you when you first read this.
> 
> My main confusion happened after reading this sentence:
> 
>   We talk about a node being “smaller” or “larger”, and “lower” or
> “higher”.
> 
> That made me think there are two different dimensions we classify nodes:
> "Size", that is, if the node is small or large, and "height", that is,
> if it is low or high.  I was hoping to learn the differences between
> "size" and "height" in the rest of the text, but the text didn't make it
> clear to me because it only talks about "smaller and lower" and "larger
> and higher".  What about "smaller and higher", or "larger and lower"?
> Are they possible at all?  After reading everything, I got the idea that
> the terms may actually be synonyms, but I was not 100% sure.  I feel we
> could make this more clear from the start.
> 
> All of this is my perspective as a non-native English speaker.  Hope
> this helps.

Thanks, I've now reworded that text, please take a look.