>> > - (when (> (position-bytes (1- (point-max))) treesit-max-buffer-size)
>> > + (when (> (position-bytes (max (point-min) (1- (point-max))))
>> > + treesit-max-buffer-size)
>>
>> I'd expect `treesit-max-buffer-size` to be compared to `buffer-size`
>> rather than to buffer positions.
>
> Please tell more: what problems do you see with the above, and why? It is
> not easy to guess what's on your mind.
I see 4 very minor problems:
- the code is more complex than the obvious
(> (buffer-size) treesit-max-buffer-size)
- as a result of that complexity, we see that its original version had
a bug :-)
- it uses `position-bytes` which is an unusual function (because it
exposes details of the internal representation).
But my question was not so much pointing out a problem but trying to
understand why we chose the more complex code.
Stefan
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