[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Oct 2022 11:16:53 +0300 |
> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: casouri@gmail.com, rpluim@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 15:25:13 +0800
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > That is correct, but your change removed only "we", and left "I"
> > intact. In any case, rephrasing to avoid pronouns doesn't necessarily
> > force us to use passive voice.
>
> Well, if you can, please suggest some better ways to do that.
Compliance!
> - - It doesn't expose a syntax tree. We put the syntax tree in the
> - parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.
> + - It doesn't expose a syntax tree. The syntax tree is placed in
> + the parser object, and updating the tree is handled at the C
> + level.
Here I'd suggest
It doesn't expose a syntax tree. The syntax tree is part of the
parser object, and updating the tree is handled on the C level.
> - - We don't expose tree cursor either. I think Lisp is slow enough
> - to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor, though I
> - don't have evidence. Also I want to minimize the number of new
> - types we introduce. Currently we only add parser and node type.
> + - The tree cursor is not exposed either. I think Lisp is slow
> + enough to nullify any performance advantage of using a cursor,
> + though I don't have evidence. Also I want to minimize the number
> + of new types we introduce. Currently we only add parser and node
> + type.
Here I'd suggest
It doesn't expose the tree cursor, either. Presumably, Lisp is slow
enough to make insignificant any performance advantages from using
the cursor. Not exposing the cursor also minimizes the number of
new types this adds to Emacs Lisp; currently, this adds only the
parser and node types.
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, (continued)
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Robert Pluim, 2022/10/27
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/27
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Robert Pluim, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/28
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Yuan Fu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Po Lu, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/29
- Re: Stylistic changes to tree-sitter code, Stefan Kangas, 2022/10/29