Re: Tree-sitter integration in python.el

[Yuan Fu]

> On Oct 12, 2022, at 10:52 AM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 
>> One problem I can see is that the same level could give very different
>> busyness across modes. That would defeat the purpose of having a single
>> setting. Say mode 1 has (A B C D E F G H I), where ABC are very basic, DEF
>> moderate, and GHI fancy, mode 2 has (A B C D E F G), A basic, BCDEF
>> moderate, G fancy. Then 80 would give a fancy font-lock in mode 1 and
>> a moderate font-lock in mode 2. You get the idea.
> 
> Yup.  We could be more explicit, then, e.g. use things like ((A B C) (D
> E F) (G H I)) for the first and ((A) (B C D E F) (G)) for the second.
> 
>> Currently tree-sitter supports both :level and :toggle. When defining
>> queries you can say :toggle python-fontify-types, and python-fontify-types
>> can control this query. :level would be the global rough settings, :toggle
>> would be the local, fine-grained setting. Instead of variables, :toggle
>> could be changed to use symbols as you suggested, so it doesn’t create
>> a gazillion variables. But WDYT of the general design?
> 
> I definitely prefer symbols to variables: this way they can use their
> own namespace and don't need the long package prefix and can be
> shared/reused between different modes without conflict.
> 
> And I would prefer not to include :level in the rules themselves and
> instead rely on a separate mapping between features and levels.

Sounds good! I can do that.

Yuan