bug#73404: 30.0.50; [forward/kill/etc]-sexp commands do not behave as expected in tree-sitter modes

[Mickey Petersen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Ah, this matches my idea of defining sexp in other languages as “repeatable
>> construct/list-like construct”.  We went with “every syntactic construct” at
>> the time, which I didn’t object to, but I’m definitely happier with the
>> repeatable construct approach. Including Stefan and Theo since they were
>> part of the original sexp navigation discussion.
>
> FWIW, we have both `forward-list` and `forward-list` and the new
> behavior you suggest sounds closer to the historical behavior of
> `forward-list` than `forward-sexp`.
>

Indeed, in Combobulate `<forward/backward>-list' is explicitly used
for sibling navigation, and `<forward/backward>-sexp' instead does
what it does in plain major modes, but tweaked ever so slightly.