Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Yuan Fu <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:14:02 -0400
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
>  Andrea Corallo <address@hidden>
> 
>  Why not simply pass to tree-sitter the chunk that jit-lock is about to
>  fontify?
> 
> Incremental parsing seems to be the preferred way to use 
> tree-sitter—maintaining a syntax tree on the fly
> and later query for information from it.

I don't see how this contradicts my proposal of passing just the chunk
that we need to fontify.  The function that actually passes the
portion of the buffer to tree-sitter can always extend the chunk in
both direction to make it easier, like make sure it's a complete code
block or something.

IOW, our goal is not to build the syntax tree, it's to give
tree-sitter enough information to allow us to fontify the part that's
about to be displayed.  We need to have tree-sitter play by Emacs
rules, not teach Emacs to play by tree-sitter rules.