Thanks, Yuan for the feedback and explanation.
I am attaching the patch with the corrections pointed out by you.
In here
+This is used instead of `font-lock-builtion-face' directly because
+otherwise the whole command, including the variable assignment part,
+is fontified with with `font-lock-builtin-face'. An alternative to
+this would be to declaration_command nodes to have a `name:' field.”
I guess you meant “...for declaration_command node to have…”? (Declaimer: not native speaker)
You are right about the plural in nodes, as I was referring to a "class" of commands. But I think "to" is the correct preposition. Thus I changed the sentence to: An alternative to this would be to declaration_commands to have a `name:' field.
Let me know what you think and if something else looks off.
--
João Paulo L. de Carvalho
Ph.D Computer Science | IC-UNICAMP | Campinas , SP - Brazil
Postdoctoral Research Fellow | University of Alberta | Edmonton, AB - Canada
0001-Initial-fontification-in-sh-mode-with-tree-sitter.patch