Re: Tree-sitter api

[Po Lu]

Phil Sainty <psainty@orcon.net.nz> writes:

> Unfortunately "tree" is an extremely generic term and on
> its own doesn't suggest the very specific functionality
> provided by tree-sitter.
>
> "trees" just looks like the plural of "tree" rather than
> "tree"+"s"[itter], and so I would expect that to be for
> manipulating some general-purpose tree data structures
> before I thought of "an incremental parsing library" for
> programming languages.
>
> Conversely the "sit" part of the name, whilst not
> suggestive of being connected with trees of some kind,
> *is* very suggestive of the actual library which is being
> integrated.
>
> I.e. tree-sitter itself may not* be about "sitting"; but
> the Emacs integration is very specifically about a thing
> called "tree-sitter" rather than just about trees.
>
> (*) Or maybe it is.  I don't understand that part of the
> name (and I can't find any documentation explaining it)
> -- but it *is* the name.
>
>
> -Phil

"treesit" sounds rather ambiguous and ugly, while "treesitt" is only 3
letters away from "tree-sitter".  Instead of bikeshedding over a name,
why not use shorthands to refer to "tree-sitter" in files where the
column number limit is actually important?  Isn't that what shorthands
were intended to solve?

Thanks.