[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function |
Date: |
Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:42:44 +0000 |
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:47 PM João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't the intervening treesit-end-of-thing go to the end of the
> current thing?, i.e. to the '('? I think it should, at least judging
> from its docstring, and this patch makes that happen:
>
> - (setq pos (funcall advance (if (> arg 0) next prev)))
> + (setq pos (funcall advance (or (if (> arg 0) next prev)
> + parent)))
>
> This doesn't seem to break tests, assuming it's not in these 3 there
> were skipped because I don't have the grammar installed.
Despite that, I think it's still wrong :-/ Now it moves too much,
i.e. it never stops moving.
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, João Távora, 2024/02/02
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function,
João Távora <=
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, João Távora, 2024/02/02
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, Yuan Fu, 2024/02/04
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, João Távora, 2024/02/04
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, Yuan Fu, 2024/02/04
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, João Távora, 2024/02/04
- bug#68899: Treesitter's forward-sexp-function, Yuan Fu, 2024/02/06