From 091398b045a2c4f4dee6c55e8ce357c4437ea8e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eli Zaretskii Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:18:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] ; * src/treesit.c: Fix wording and typos in commentary. --- src/treesit.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/treesit.c b/src/treesit.c index 8eba16b1336..05651360b93 100644 --- a/src/treesit.c +++ b/src/treesit.c @@ -423,16 +423,16 @@ init_treesit_functions (void) Parsers in indirect buffers: We make indirect buffers share the parser list of their base buffer. Indirect buffers and their base buffer share the same buffer content but not other buffer attributes. - If they have separate parser lists, changes made in an indirect - buffer will only update parsers of that indirect buffer, and not + If they had separate parser lists, changes made in an indirect + buffer would only update parsers of that indirect buffer, and not parsers in the base buffer or other indirect buffers, and vice versa. - For that reason, the base buffer and all ot its indirect buffers + For that reason, the base buffer and all of its indirect buffers share a single parser list. But each parser in this shared parser list still points to their own buffer. On top of that, - treesit-parser-list only return parsers that belongs to the calling + treesit-parser-list only returns parsers that belong to the calling buffer. So ultimately, from the user's POV, each buffer, regardless - of indirect or not, appears to have their own parser list. A - discussion can be found in bug#59693. Note that that discussion led + of whether indirect or not, appears to have its own parser list. A + discussion can be found in bug#59693. Note that the discussion led to an earlier design, which is different from the current one. Line and column reporting to tree-sitter: technically we had to send