You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Disclaimer: I am not very familiar with Treesitter or parser's in general, and I'm just putting this here as a consideration.
I am new to Neorg and have been reading through wiki/specifications. I when messing around with it I noticed that detached modifier extensions are not implemented at the moment. Here is a screen shot of the queries/norg/highlights.scm file over in the Neorg repo.
I thought it was a cool concept and looked a little into how much effort writing up a PR would take, and that landed me here. This is where my inexperience with Treesitter/parser's comes into play. I'm curious if it would make sense to have some more abstract nodes that encompass the more specific nodes.
If I understand correctly, the node-types.json defines the different tokens that can appear in a norg file and the grammar.json defines a strict left to right unambiguous grammar that can be used to construct any "valid" norg file. I see we have some general nodes such as _word and _lowercase, but don't have ones such as _modifier, _attached_modifier, and _detached_modifier.
If these make sense to add, I would assume it could make an implementation of detached_modifier_extensions more elegant by allowing for a more general reference to preceding nodes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Modifier Extensions
Disclaimer: I am not very familiar with Treesitter or parser's in general, and I'm just putting this here as a consideration.
I am new to Neorg and have been reading through wiki/specifications. I when messing around with it I noticed that detached modifier extensions are not implemented at the moment. Here is a screen shot of the
queries/norg/highlights.scm
file over in the Neorg repo.I thought it was a cool concept and looked a little into how much effort writing up a PR would take, and that landed me here. This is where my inexperience with Treesitter/parser's comes into play. I'm curious if it would make sense to have some more abstract nodes that encompass the more specific nodes.
If I understand correctly,
the node-types.json
defines the different tokens that can appear in anorg
file and thegrammar.json
defines a strict left to right unambiguous grammar that can be used to construct any "valid"norg
file. I see we have some general nodes such as_word
and_lowercase
, but don't have ones such as_modifier
,_attached_modifier
, and_detached_modifier
.If these make sense to add, I would assume it could make an implementation of
detached_modifier_extensions
more elegant by allowing for a more general reference to preceding nodes.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: