Re: Update on tree-sitter structure navigation

[Yuan Fu]

> On Sep 9, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 20:04:07 +0300
>> Cc: casouri@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, danny@dfreeman.email,
>> theo@thornhill.no, jostein@secure.kjonigsen.net, dev@rjt.dev,
>> wkirschbaum@gmail.com, pedz@easesoftware.com
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
>> 
>>> How is it useful to ask users to use, say, 2-year old versions of
>>> grammar libraries, especially for languages where either the language
>>> or the library (or both) change quickly?
>> 
>> It would be better to use a 2-year-old grammar which works with our mode 
>> than a new grammar which breaks our mode anyway.
> 
> But worse than using a 6-month-old grammar that doesn't break the mode
> and has a lot of improvements.
> 
>>> How is it friendlier to downgrade to an older version (which would
>>> require fetching it, building it with a C compiler, and installing it)
>>> than to patch a single Lisp file?  Actually, people don't even need to
>>> patch their Emacs installations, they could instead have a fixed
>>> version of the Lisp file in their home directories or in site-lisp.
>> 
>> So we'll suggest they manually copy the latest version of xxx-js-mode.el 
>> from master over to their site-lisp? That will be our recommendation in 
>> case a grammar breaks?
> 
> Something like that, yes.  Or applying the diffs from the fix.
> 
>> I suppose we could publish all ts grammars in "core ELPA".
> 
> Yes, that could be a good solution, if nothing better comes up.

Does “publish all ts grammars” mean the binary libraries?

Yuan