Re: An anonymous IRC user's opinion

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 13/10/2024 07:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > The proposal I'm quoting is straightforward: if Emacs is compiled with
> > tree-sitter support, enable the modes and warn when the grammars are not
> > available. If Emacs is not compiled with tree-sitter, do neither.
> >
> > That kind of rule has predictability: for example if the grammar was not
> > installed originally but the user did that while Emacs was running, the
> > corresponding major mode will start working the next time the user tries
> > to enable it. That wouldn't be the case if we conditionally alter
> > auto-mode-alist based on grammar availability.
> >
> > The above approach should be quite easy to implement, if there's
> > agreement to it. Otherwise, the issue is about choosing the details of
> > the UI first.
>
> It is not clear which modes you suggest that should behave like that.
> Surely, not all of them, i.e. including those for which non-TS modes
> are part of Emacs?

I don't have a strong opinion on which set should be enabled - maybe 
just all TS modes which we don't have built-in counterparts. Maybe not 
even toml-ts-mode, since there is conf-toml-mode.

Maybe make some exceptions for TS modes that provide significantly 
better functionality than the classic ones. Not sure which ones.

What I think is important, though, is avoiding major mode functions 
modiying auto-mode-alist at runtime.

> And yes, I would like to hear from more people what they think about
> the possible behaviors in these cases, including how to handle missing
> grammar libraries.

Everybody's welcome to chime in.