Re: Interest in adding a tree-sitter mode for Slang?

Stefan Monnier <[email protected]> writes:

>> +  :safe 'natnump)
>            ^
>            #

Oops!

>>  ;;; Syntax Table (mostly derived from C)
>>  (defvar slang-ts-mode--syntax-table
>> -  (let ((table (make-syntax-table)))
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?+   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?-   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?=   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?%   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?&   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?|   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?^   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?!   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?@   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?~   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?<   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?>   "."      table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?/   ". 124b" table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?*   ". 23"   table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?\n  "> b"    table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?\^m "> b"    table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?\` "." table)
>> -    (modify-syntax-entry ?$  "." table)
>> -    table)
>> +  (with-syntax-table (make-syntax-table)
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?+   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?-   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?=   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?%   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?&   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?|   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?^   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?!   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?@   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?~   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?<   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?>   ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?/   ". 124b")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?*   ". 23")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?\n  "> b")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?\^m "> b")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?\` ".")
>> +    (modify-syntax-entry ?$  ".")
>> +    (syntax-table))
>>    "Syntax table for `slang-ts-mode'.")
>
> That's an odd suggestion.  Most code out there uses the
> `(let ... table)` style rather than `with-syntax-table`.
>
> `with-syntax-table` is a somewhat problematic feature
> in general (e.g. any `syntax-ppss` that happens within
> a `with-syntax-table` has to be treated specially, etc...), so
> we should keep it for those cases where it's really needed.

My idea was mainly to avoid having to specify the optional SYNTAX-TABLE
entry in every line, since it can default to the current syntax table,
but if you think this is problematic I'd also gladly retract my
suggestions.