bug#61655: closed ([Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 28 Feb 2023 04:09:55 +0200
with message-id <3c515b2c-37c3-c6b3-c03e-f8fb20dba9cb@yandex.ru>
and subject line Re: bug#61655: [Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock 
function calls, definitions, separately
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61655,
regarding [Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, 
definitions, separately
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61655: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61655
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: [Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:54:42 -0500

Hello,

Is it possible to have the builtin tree sitter give differentiate font-locking for function calls and function definitions?

The 3rd party tree-sitter package (https://github.com/emacs-tree-sitter/elisp-tree-sitter) has this feature and it is quite nice. In fact it goes further, allowing you to additionally distinguish between builtin calls, macro calls, method calls, etc. (see https://github.com/emacs-tree-sitter/elisp-tree-sitter/blob/master/lisp/tree-sitter-hl.el).

As far as I could see, the builtin mode only provides `font-lock-function-name-face`. I have set treesit-font-lock-level to 4. 

Examples below are for C/C++ mode, but this would apply to any number of languages.

Desired (i.e. what 3rd party package produces):

Current:

Best regards,

Jacob Faibussowitsch
(Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch)

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#61655: [Tree sitter] [Feature Request] font-lock function calls, definitions, separately
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 28 Feb 2023 04:09:55 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1
>
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2023 15:05, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> > I suppose we should go with -use-, unless more alternatives are suggested.
>
> And done. Thanks all!
>
>
> --- End Message ---