feat: restructure repository for new tree-sitter versions, add flake.nix #47
Conversation
ErinvanderVeen
force-pushed
the
restructure
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ed93776
to
4b8712e
Compare
ErinvanderVeen
force-pushed
the
restructure
branch
from
4b8712e
to
8e422ad
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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One thing to do before merging is to update the README though, I think there are hacking instructions that are outdated - and maybe we can add some list of the bindings that we provide?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Outdated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.
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.
We should at least try I suppose
| ''; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| checks.default = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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.