Having no experience with treesitter I find the query language rather hard to parse. From a practical point of view and experimenting with the library I’m not surprised to go with this nested For loop approach.
The query language is definitely underdocumented. In case it helps you, what helped me was realizing it’s basically a funky pattern language, à la the match pattern sublanguages in OCaml/Haskell/Rust.
But the syntax for variable binding is idiosyncratic and the opposite of normal pattern languages. Writing “x” doesn’t bind the thing at the position to the variable x; instead, you have to write e.g. foo @x to bind x to the child of type foo. Insanely, some Scheme dialects use @ with the exact opposite semantics!! There’s also a bizarre # syntax for conditionals and statements.
Honestly there isn’t really an excuse for how weird they made the pattern syntax given that people have spent decades working on pattern matching for everything from XML to objects (even respecting abstraction!). I’ve slowly been souring on treesitter in general, but paraphrasing Stroustrup: there are things people complain about, and then there are things nobody uses.
jonathanyc|1 year ago
But the syntax for variable binding is idiosyncratic and the opposite of normal pattern languages. Writing “x” doesn’t bind the thing at the position to the variable x; instead, you have to write e.g. foo @x to bind x to the child of type foo. Insanely, some Scheme dialects use @ with the exact opposite semantics!! There’s also a bizarre # syntax for conditionals and statements.
Honestly there isn’t really an excuse for how weird they made the pattern syntax given that people have spent decades working on pattern matching for everything from XML to objects (even respecting abstraction!). I’ve slowly been souring on treesitter in general, but paraphrasing Stroustrup: there are things people complain about, and then there are things nobody uses.
ckolkey|1 year ago