Re: treesit indentation "blinking"

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 30/03/2023 12:28, João Távora wrote:
> This problematic already counts as "bouncing" to me, for some meaning of
> "bouncing". c++-mode doesn't behave like that because indentation is
> already where it is supposed to be if you type that sequence of
> keystrokes.

Okay, if that's what you meant.

I think this one (indentation after RET in an incomplete function 
definition) should be fixed in the indentation rules. The contents of 
electric-indent-chars won't fix it either way.

> And did you try the final example that I showed in the animated gif?
> That's even more "bouncy", at least in my book.

Yep, I see that. Also seems like something that could be improved in the 
indentation rules. When there is just one or no semis inside for's 
parens, we get ERROR nodes. I guess some rule is hit that should not be hit.