[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tree-sitter introduction documentation

From: Philip Kaludercic
Subject: Re: Tree-sitter introduction documentation
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:10:31 +0000

Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:

>> I did try this out and confirmed that it does work (or at least I
>> hope I did say that).  I didn't have a nice script like you give
>> here, but that this is possible was clear.
> You didn't, no, and it wasn't clear.  You merely said "it might be
> possible" (tree days ago) and "it seems that it is possible"
> (yesterday). To which I replied that it isn't possible "without a lot
> of complications".  The script I sent is meant to clarify that point:
> to show how and to what extent it is possible, and what the
> complications (having to modify the source grammars manually) are.

You are right, sorry about that.  I tested it out but didn't report back
on my results.

What I am considering doing is contacting the tree-sitter developers and
arguing in favour of "specifying" that a grammar has to be written in
standardised EMCAScript, instead of node.js.  The adjustment would be
relatively minor on their end, but make the system more portable.

reply via email to

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