[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:20:36 +0000 |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 9:15 AM Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This last part shouldn't be necessary: we should move by characters,
> > not by columns. Why is it necessary?
>
> Maybe João can clarify, but I'm pretty sure this is there to support the
> UTF-16 way of counting offsets, so this ideally should move to
> eglot-move-to-lsp-abiding-column.
I have to be brutally honest here: I don't like this patch. I
appreciate the effort, I really do, and thank for guiding us its
the motions, but there are two main things I really don't like
about it, and 1 that I'm on the fence about.
The first thing I don't like is likely the reason that Eli is
confused here. The late binding of column-counting strategies
is confusing. I wrote these functions so that each one has
a separate well-defined, readable-inasmuch-as-possible,
vc-region-history-traceable, performant column-counting
strategy. The "lsp-abiding" naming might be off, I admit, but
only since LSP started supporting more than one strategy.
The second thing I don't like is also due to the late-binding idea.
This is a hotspot in Eglot, some of these functions are called
many many times, for each LSP server interaction depending
on how many document positions are exchanged (and they can
be a lot). I do remember benchmarking strategies at the time
and seeing a perceptible difference. Plus, this late-binding is
really useless as a server will guaranteedly _not_ change its
column-counting standard during the LSP session.
The third thing that I'm not crazy with but I don't mind is
the necessity to support the "utf-8" strategy. If "utf-16"
is mandatory, and we already support "utf-32" anyway, why should
we be adding this additional complexity. But, if it can be
hidden behind a new pair of functions and Eli accepts it,
I'm OK with it.
Finally, here's a patch that doesn't use late-binding, doesn't
introduce new strategies and supports "utf-32" and "utf-16"
today. As you can see, the patch is nearly trivial.
diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/eglot.el b/lisp/progmodes/eglot.el
index eea8be6d1aa..ae8afa69651 100644
--- a/lisp/progmodes/eglot.el
+++ b/lisp/progmodes/eglot.el
@@ -807,6 +807,7 @@ eglot-client-capabilities
:rangeFormatting `(:dynamicRegistration :json-false)
:rename `(:dynamicRegistration :json-false)
:inlayHint `(:dynamicRegistration :json-false)
+ :general `(:positionEncodings ["utf-32" "utf-16"])
:publishDiagnostics (list :relatedInformation :json-false
;; TODO: We can support
:codeDescription after
;; adding an appropriate UI to
@@ -1789,6 +1790,9 @@ eglot--managed-mode
(add-hook 'eldoc-documentation-functions #'eglot-signature-eldoc-function
nil t)
(eldoc-mode 1))
+ (when (eq (eglot--server-capable :positionEncoding) "utf-16")
+ (eglot--setq-saving eglot-move-to-column-function #'eglot-move-to-column)
+ (eglot--setq-saving eglot-current-column-function
#'eglot-current-column))
(cl-pushnew (current-buffer) (eglot--managed-buffers
(eglot-current-server))))
(t
(remove-hook 'after-change-functions 'eglot--after-change t)
As I said, enhancing this patch with a new pair of "current/move-to"
functions that add in utf-8 support is acceptable.
João
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, (continued)
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, João Távora, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/23
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability,
João Távora <=
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, João Távora, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, João Távora, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Augusto Stoffel, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, João Távora, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, João Távora, 2023/02/24
- bug#61726: [PATCH] Eglot: Support positionEncoding capability, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/24