bug#62238: 30.0.50; Unusual interpretation of "S-expressions" in c-ts-mode

[Juri Linkov]

>> After trying to tweak treesit-sexp-type-regexp a few times
>> I become convinced it is not up to the task of properly handling
>> all sexp operations.  It seems the existing functions that
>> implement C-M-f (forward-sexp), C-M-u (backward-up-list), etc.
>> should remain in place, and the role of the tree-sitter would be
>> only to provide syntax information for them, i.e. just to replace
>> syntax tables with tree-sitter wrappers.
>
> It would be good if you could tell more about what you tried and what
> you saw, and how you reached this quite radical conclusion.  Maybe you
> are right, but without knowing the details, how can we possibly
> discuss it and try to reach a common conclusion?  Up front, the
> conclusion sounds almost incredible: after all, how can a compiler
> recognize blocks and defuns if not by parsing the program source?  If
> the compiler does it, why cannot we do the same using the parsing
> products?

Ideally, the existing syntax tables should still be used, and
tree-sitter could provide an additional support for "implicit parens"
as mentioned in bug#62086.  "Implicit parens" are such constructs
that are not defined by syntax tables, but perceived as invisible parens.

> So please consider making the discussion more useful by telling more.
> (Perhaps on emacs-devel, not here.)

I could provide more feedback when someone will start a discussion
on emacs-devel.