-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: restructure repository for new tree-sitter versions, add flake.nix #47
Conversation
ed93776
to
4b8712e
Compare
4b8712e
to
8e422ad
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's a lot of generated boilerplate, on which I can't say much because I'm not familiar with all the ecosystems. But in general looks ok.
One thing to do before merging is to update the README though, I think there are hacking instructions that are outdated - and maybe we can add some list of the bindings that we provide?
src/tree_sitter/array.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we should use that instead of the manually defined C arrays in the scanner (in a different PR though, this one is already big)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should at least try I suppose
''; | ||
}; | ||
|
||
checks.default = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we use nix flake check
instead of npm
for the CI now? (it's an open question, and should be a different PR anyway)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes! That is probably a good idea!
@ErinvanderVeen do you want me to take a look at the README update? |
(I must say the tree-sitter grammar is a bit of a bottleneck right now, as there are two PRs here to merge, then I have another one coming for another small update, and then we need to update topiary-queries and finally Nickel) |
I was working on reviewing #46 when I wanted to add tests. Tree-sitter has changed a lot since we created this repository. This PR brings it up to date with what is expected by the tree-sitter tool.