> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 12:47:30 -0800
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > In that case, "triplets" is definitely incorrect, but I had no way of
> > understanding that this is possible.
> >
> > It should be possible top describe this kind of argument list, but
> > does it really have to be so complicated? These are not internal
> > functions, so Lisp programmers will have to battle with this signature
> > all the time. Can we make the function's signature easier to
> > document, understand, and use?
> >
> > For example, what about accepting an alist as the argument, where each
> > alist element specifies a query and its keyword/value pairs that
> > customize the query?
>
> Alists has too much layers of parenthesizes that is verbose and easy to get
> wrong. Compare:
I don't share your pessimism about alists. And the way the functions
are defined now are also very error-prone and complicate the code,
which needs to distinguish between several very different signatures.
How about making the query itself the value of a keyword/value pair?
Like this:
:language 'python
:override t
:feature 'string
:query '((string :anchor "\"" @python--treesit-fontify-string)
(string) @contextual)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4