[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modific
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Dec 2022 09:46:13 +0200 |
> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 23:20:59 -0800
> Cc: miha@kamnitnik.top,
> 59693@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> >>> We don’t want indirect buffer and base buffers to share parsers, since
> >>> they can have different narrowing, and semantically indirect buffers
> >>> should share anything but the text with the base buffer.
> >>
> >> Yes, the parsers should not be shared.
> >>
> >>> How about this: we change current_buffer->parser_list from a plain list
> >>> of parsers to a cons (PARSER-LIST . INDIRECT-PARSER-LIST), where
> >>> PARSER-LIST is as before. But for base buffers, INDIRECT-PARSER-LIST
> >>> includes all the parsers of its indirect buffers; and for indirect
> >>> buffers, INDIRECT-PARSER-LIST is nil.
> >>
> >> You can maybe have the indirect buffers in the list, not their parsers.
> >> That could make it easier to access other treesit-related information of
> >> the
> >> indirect buffers, if needed.
> >
> > Good idea, it’s easier to know when to remove the reference with buffers,
> > aka when buffer is killed.
>
> I now have a patch that fixes this problem. WDYT? I added a new buffer field
> since it’s cleaner than turning ts_parser_list into a cons, hopefully that’s
> not frowned upon.
Thanks.
If we are adding to the buffer object a field that holds the list of
indirect buffers, then:
. the name of the field should not include "treesit" in it, and it
shouldn't be conditioned on HAVE_TREE_SITTER
. I wonder if a flat list is a good idea, i.e. scalable enough? also,
treesit_reap_indirect_buffers conses a lot as result
. I vaguely remember that adding built-in fields to the buffer object had
some caveats, but I don't recall the details (did you bootstrap?)
Stefan, any comments on this? Are there better ideas of how to track buffer
text changes in indirect buffers?
bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Stefan Monnier, 2022/12/04
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Stefan Monnier, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Stefan Monnier, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Stefan Monnier, 2022/12/05
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/12/06
- bug#59693: 29.0.50; treesitter in base buffer doesn't respond to modifications in indirect buffer correctly, Yuan Fu, 2022/12/07