Re: Call for volunteers: add tree-sitter support to major modes

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jostein@kjonigsen.net
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:44:56 +0200
> 
> Well, I'm a maintainer and contributor to two fairly popular
> modes, 'csharp-mode' and 'typescript-mode'.  The former is in ELPA, the
> latter in nongnu ELPA.  For the former, I'm not sure if bringing the
> cc-mode variant into core is a good plan, for several reasons.
> 
> - It has some perf issues with multiline strings
> - There's some problems with indentation and other very c# related stuff
> - It _will_ cause more maintainer burden onto Alan, because of cc-mode
>   lineage.
> 
> 
> In this case it makes sense for me to add only the tree-sitter variant,
> found here [0].
> 
> 
> For 'typescript-mode', it isn't feasible to enter the most use variant
> into core because of copyright issues, but more importantly, it has some
> very long-standing unfixed issues that are impossible to solve.
> 
> - tsx cannot be supported reliably by js-mode derivation because it uses
>   same syntax for types and tsx ( <, >).  This is handled just fine by
>   tree-sitter.  Same for template string literals.
> 
> - The tree-sitter variant is made by me and Jostein (CC'd) [1], so there are
>   no issues there with assignment.
> 
> 
> My suggestion is to add the tree-sitter variant in these cases, and let
> the other modes die a slow, deprecated death down the line.
> 
> What do you think?

SGTM, but I'd like to hear from Lars as well.

Another possible concern is: what will users of the tree-sitter
variants we add miss wrt the existing variants?  IOW, what useful
features will be missing from the support of those languages by these
new modes?