bug#64018: 29.0.91; Improve tree-sitter docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Basil Contovounesios <contovob@tcd.ie>
> Cc: 64018@debbugs.gnu.org,  casouri@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:45:03 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii [2023-06-13 09:31 -0400] wrote:
> 
> > But on second thought: why do you need the colon at all?  What does it
> > signifiy?  If you must say that KEYWORD begins with a colon, just say
> > that (although it's pretty clear), or maybe show an example.
> 
> I added a colon in this single instance for consistency with subsequent
> paragraphs of the same function definition:
> 
>      It takes a series of QUERY-SPECs, where each QUERY-SPEC is a QUERY
>      preceded by zero or more KEYWORD/VALUE pairs.  Each QUERY is a
>                               ^^^^^^^
>      tree-sitter query in either the string, s-expression or compiled
>      form, or a function.
> 
>      If QUERY is a tree-sitter query, it should be preceded by two
>      :KEYWORD/VALUE pairs, where the ‘:embed’ keyword specifies the
>      ^^^^^^^^
>      embedded language, and the ‘:host’ keyword specified the host
>      language.
> 
>      [...]
> 
>      If QUERY is a function, it doesn’t need any :KEYWORD and VALUE
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^
>      pair.  It should be a function that takes 2 arguments, START and
>      END, and sets the ranges for parsers in the current buffer in the
>      region between START and END.  It is fine for this function to set
>      ranges in a larger region that encompasses the region between START
>      and END.
> 
> The same @var{:keyword}/@var{value} pattern also appears a couple of
> times in the related '(elisp) Parser-based Font Lock'.
> 
> I don't mind what we go with, so long as it's used consistently across
> paragraphs of the same definition.  Which markup/wording do you prefer?

I think the colons should removed.