Re: Tree-sitter and major mode inheritance

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 13:49:50 -0800
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
>  theo@thornhill.no
> 
> 
> 
> > On Nov 19, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > 
> > On 19.11.2022 12:26, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>> From: Yuan Fu<casouri@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 01:41:47 -0800
> >>> Cc: Stefan Monnier<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
> >>>  Eli Zaretskii<eliz@gnu.org>,
> >>>  Theodor Thornhill<theo@thornhill.no>
> >>> 
> >>> Anyway, does anyone think this is a good/bad idea? Should I go implement 
> >>> this on css, js, c, etc? It can also be the other way around: instead of 
> >>> having c-mode being the virtual mode, we can leave c-mode as-is, and have 
> >>> a c-base-mode inherited by c-mode and c-ts-mode. And similarly 
> >>> rss-base-mode, rss-mode, and rss-ts-mode.
> >> I'd prefer leaving the original modes as-is.  That should cause less
> >> compatibility problems, I think.
> > 
> > Eli, what's your solution for the problem, then?
> > 
> > E.g. js-mode enables tree-sitter, and installs some stuff based on it.
> > 
> > But js2-mode inherits from js-mode (meaning, it will run the same setup 
> > code, and then some of its own), yet it has its own parser. Which will 
> > cause all sorts of conflicts with tree-sitter.
> 
> Actually, that’s evidence supporting his preference: js-mode will remain to 
> be the native implementation, so inheriting from it is exactly as before. 
> Js-ts-mode will install tree-sitter stuff. And js-base-mode wouldn’t do much.

Why do we need js-base-mode? what will it do?