Re: Unifying "foo-mode"s and "foo-ts-mode"s

[Philip Kaludercic]

Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> You can try.  I would like to start a full feature freeze in a day or
>>> two, so I'm not sure you will have enough time.  And it isn't like we
>>> didn't try various approaches during the past two months, so frankly I
>>> don't think that a better way even exists.  But if you come up with
>>> some very bright idea, who knows?
>>
>> I have attached a sketch of my proposal with support for Python.
>> Instead of a separate python-ts-mode, we regulate tree-sitter support
>> using a user option `treesit-enabled-modes'.  It can either be a list
>>
>
> [...]
>
> IIUC this will make all other config run before the treesit-related
> code?  

If that is the problem, that we can solve that by re-adjusting the order
in which the expanded code occurs. 

>        In that case I think this cannot work, because we _don't_ want to
> set all the before/after-change functions many modes set, for example.

What exactly is the issue here?  Can't we overwrite it again if
necessary?

> Theo