>> +(if (treesit-ready-p 'elixir)
>> + (progn
>> + (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.elixir\\'" .
>> elixir-ts-mode))
>> + (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.ex\\'" .
>> elixir-ts-mode))
>> + (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.exs\\'" .
>> elixir-ts-mode))
>> + (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("mix\\.lock" .
>> elixir-ts-mode))))
>> +
>> +(if (treesit-ready-p 'heex)
>> + (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.[hl]?eex\\'" .
>> heex-ts-mode)))
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Copy/paste error, I presume?
>
> Thanks.
This was intentional, but perhaps a bad choice and lack of
understanding of how the
-ts-modes should be activated. elixir-ts-mode should ideally
load
the
HEEx grammar, but should also technically be able to function
without.
Sorry, I don't understand: are you saying that the HEEx grammar
supports both modes? I thought you need a separate grammar for
Elixir. I also thought the Elixir files have different
file-name
extensions than the HEEx files. Was I mistaken?
The Elixir language author mentioned that heex can practically
be
seen as part of Elixir, so requiring heex-ts-mode makes sense,
sort
of.
heex-ts-mode and elixir-ts-mode used to be in one file, but I
was
asked to split them for the MELPA submission. The HEEx language
should actually also be able to embed Elixir, but this is not
essential and we can do without imo. Would it make sense have
them
in one file?
Maybe. Otherwise, if they have a lot in common, you'd need to
duplicate stuff or have a common file used by both. Your call.
0001-Add-heex-ts-mode.patch