Re: master 09b5f00613: ; Fix calls to treesit functions

[Theodor Thornhill]

Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> writes:

>> On Dec 18, 2022, at 10:26 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 December 2022 04:37:03 CET, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 
>> wrote:
>>>>> How 'bout always defining `treesit-parser-list` (and making it return
>>>>> `nil` if Emacs was compiled without Tree-sitter support)?
>>>> Is it indeed guaranteed that the first function to be called by any
>>>> application that wants to optionally use tree-sitter will be
>>>> treesit-parser-list? Av
>>> 
>>> Good question.  Tho I don't think we need a guarantee.
>>> We just need it to be frequent enough.
>>> 
>>>> What if they want to start with some other function?
>>> 
>>> There's always `treesit-available-p`.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Stefan
>> 1>
>>> 
>> 
>> How about treesit-ensure, that checks treesit-available-p and whether it's 
>> enabled for the current mode? The treesit-parser-list is also kind of 
>> working just by accident, as it isn't its job to ensure availability.
>
> Depends on how you view it. If all you need to know is whether there
> is a parser and everything you do is language-agnostic, then checking
> treesit-parser-list is the right thing to do.
>
> OTOH treesit-ensure feels vague to me, what exactly does it represent?
> Treesit-available-p + treesit-parser-list? If it represents “this
> major mode is a tree-sitter mode”, it still doesn’t say much IMO. I
> think it makes more sense to check for specific features, eg, "is
> there a parser”.
>

Yeah, could be Treesit-available-p + treesit-parser-list.  It just feels
a little manual having to (and (treesit-available-p)
(treesit-parser-list) ...) every time we use it. Treesit-parser-ensure?

Theo