Re: Lower-level change hook immune to with-silent-modifications

[Ihor Radchenko]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> As I just argued in bug#51766, I don't think it makes sense to try to
>> have such "a lower-level after-change-functions that is immune to
>> with-silent-modifications".
>
> I tend to agree.  We can discuss the specific needs that triggered
> that request, but by and large, we have a good reason to have
> inhibit-modification-hooks that affects any Lisp program that wants to
> know about buffer modifications.  That's the difference between the
> Lisp level and the lower-level code in C, which "knows everything",
> including when it isn't safe to use some data or some objects.

Now I am wondering why tree-sitter should be any different.
Apparently the existing after-change-functions functionality was not
sufficient for tree-sitter. Probably because of issues similar to
bug#51766. Can more fine-grained modification info be exposed to Elisp?

Best,
Ihor