Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

build: prefer automatic generation of treesitter parser from grammar #29

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ttytm
Copy link
Member

@ttytm ttytm commented Mar 15, 2024

The PR deletes and ignores generated static files in the repository.

This would remove the overhead that we are currently encountering in terms of repository size growth, additional effort and error potential.

Running tree-sitter generate will generate the necessary src/ directory and files(keeping the src dir should not be required). Generating the files can be automated by projects that use the parser, like nvim-treesitter. It's an approach that e.g. tree-sitter Swift is using.

Refs.:

Required for: nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter#6300


TODO

  • Update CI and tests work with file generation

delete and ignore generated static files in the repository
@ttytm ttytm marked this pull request as draft March 15, 2024 13:48
@ttytm
Copy link
Member Author

ttytm commented Mar 15, 2024

Before continuing on this, I'd like to confirm that the change the PR is trying to achieve has a chance.

I'd put the work to keep things running and testable with much convenience as possible then.

@JalonSolov
Copy link

Seems to me that automating things this way will mean the tool will be kept more up-to-date with the compiler, which sounds like a good thing.

Just have to keep the grammar updated.

@ttytm
Copy link
Member Author

ttytm commented Mar 15, 2024

K started working on it. There are several more advantages that already reveal themselves in the process. The coming week is quite full. So I think the week after I'll push an update and leave an overview.

@Lycs-D Lycs-D mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2024
@ttytm ttytm added this to the 0.0.5 milestone Mar 20, 2024
@ttytm
Copy link
Member Author

ttytm commented Apr 4, 2024

Not planned for now backlogging for a potentially future version

@ttytm ttytm closed this Apr 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants