Re: smie-next-sexp vs associative operators

[Stephen Leake]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> I don't understand.  The language implementor can set it to nil by
>> default, to get the above properties.  Then during indentation, it can
>> be let-bound to t.
>
> That would bring back some of the benefits, but not those for
> indentation and I still haven't seen a concrete case where such
> a setting in indentation would be useful (I'm not saying your case isn't
> one such example, but I still haven't seen your concrete case).

I started this thread with a specific example. Your solution is to
abandon the generic "find the statement start" solution, and put in
special cases for keywords that happen to be associative.

> but still I don't think you need it.

Of course there are other ways to solve any particular problem; I was
looking for a more general solution.

>> But it means spending time optimizing the grammar so it has these
>> properties. As I've said, I've got way to much work to do, so keeping it
>> simple is more important at the moment.
>
> Fine.

I will continue using my patched version of smie-backward-sexp until
I've got a functioning ada-mode; then I think about how to move forward
on this.

-- 
-- Stephe