[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SPAM UNSURE] Maybe we're taking a wrong approach towards tree-sitte

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [SPAM UNSURE] Maybe we're taking a wrong approach towards tree-sitter
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:59:29 +0300

> From: Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:30:42 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >                                                       and also about
> > decreasing the maintenance load.
> Sure, but it is also a limitation. If Emacs will rely on TS maintainers
> to create new grammars and update existing ones when language changes,
> it means Emacs users will have to wait for changes until they are
> fixed upstream, similar as how gnu/linux distros work regarding
> packaging.

We have the same "problem" with every other library we use: the image
libraries, GnuTLS, HarfBuzz, etc.

Besides, TS is used by quite a few projects, so how long do you think
it will take for serious problems in language support to be fixed?

OTOH, take a look at some places in Emacs that don't have active
maintainers: problems there sometimes take forever to fix.  This is
what happens when a project wants to control everything in its domain,
but lacks manpower for doing so.

It is not reasonable to expect Emacs to have experts on board for
parsing every language on the face of Earth.  It won't work.

> I don't know, I am maybe overly sceptical to TS; I don't mean it is a
> bad package, and I am sure it has it's place in other editors, I am just
> not sure how it fits in Emacs where everything is easily configurable
> and extensible.

Not everything.  Again, take the other optional libraries we use as
examples: they cannot be extended inside Emacs.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]