Re: Code navigation for sh-mode with Tree-sitter

From:

João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho

Subject:

Date:

Tue, 6 Dec 2022 14:55:55 -0700

I completed my patch to add basic navigation to bash-ts-mode.

It works consistently when the new navigation functions (`sh-mode--treesit-beginning-of-defun' and `sh-mode--treesit-end-of-defun') are bound directly to C-M-a/e. However, if those functions are bound to `beginning-of-defun-function' and `end-of-defun-function', C-M-e does not work with negative arguments inside of functions.

In the example below C-u - 1 C-M-e goes to the beginning of foo and not to end of bar when point is inside foo, and anywhere after bar:

function foo {
function bar {
echo "Hello from bar"
}
if [[ $1 > 0 ]]; then
return 42
else
return 24
fi
echo bar
}

Any comments and feedback on the patch are welcomed.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 2:46 PM João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Should we make it configurable, then? A variable that makes
> > tree-sitter defun navigation switch between two modes: top-level only
> > and not top-level only.

In CC Mode, it has been configurable via the user option c-defun-tactic
for somewhere between ten and fifteen years. When c-defun-tactic is t,
C-M-a/e go to the start/end of the top level defuns. When it is the
symbol go-outward, C-M-a/e move to the next start/end of defun, if any,
at the current level of class/namespace nesting, and move outwards to
the next level of class/namespace nesting when a class/namespace boundary
is reached.

The 'go-outward behavior is the one I have implemented.

I don't remember any complaints about this mechanism.

> And for functions nested in a class: if you type C-M-e at the beginning
> of a class, should it go to the end of the first function in that
> class, or should it go to the end of the class? Right now because of
> how end-of-defun works, it will jump to the end of the class if point
> is at the beginning of the class (1), and jump to the first function if
> point is before the beginning of the class (2).

This doesn't seem sensible.

I tend to agree. I would expect it to go to the nearest node (either class or function) and not bypass a class node in favor of function nodes.

--
João Paulo L. de Carvalho
Ph.D Computer Science | IC-UNICAMP | Campinas , SP - Brazil
Postdoctoral Research Fellow | University of Alberta | Edmonton, AB - Canada
joao.carvalho@ic.unicamp.br
joao.carvalho@ualberta.ca

João Paulo L. de Carvalho
Ph.D Computer Science | IC-UNICAMP | Campinas , SP - Brazil
Postdoctoral Research Fellow | University of Alberta | Edmonton, AB - Canada

joao.carvalho@ic.unicamp.br
joao.carvalho@ualberta.ca