Compatible with new Treesitter update? #962
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
as far as im aware this theme should be compatible wit the new main branch since thats what ive been testing on for the past year. the could you possibly check if you experience the same issues with different theme and provide some more information about your setup by creating an issue? much appreciated! id also like to note that i really dont appreciate your downplaying of the massive effort on neovim core and the treesitter team to make this amazing refactor. the reason documentation is less for this version is because its way simpler: the plugin simply ships a few queries and parsers - thats all. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Treesitter recently did a big update, moving their default branch from the old version,
master, to a "full, incompatible, rewrite"main, and this new, very poorly documented version doesn't seem to have the same configuration options as the old version.I'm currently rebuilding my neovim config (from NVChad + youtube guide to my own custom one) and am having an issue which I'd definitely phrase as "my Treesitter highlights looking incorrect" per the FAQ section at the bottom of this page's readme, but the
additional_vim_regex_highlighting = falsesolution given there doesn't work with the new Treesitter version.Does anyone know if it's possible to get the new Treesitter version working with the current version of this theme? If so, how?
EDIT: This line and below is a response to the response to my question. As this thread has been locked, the only other way I could deliver this response would be to create a new discussion page (inappropriate), create a new Issue (too high a barrier to entry for now), or email the maintainer directly (crazy person behavior + not publicly visible)
I would like to preface my response by making it clear that I don't expect you to take any action about this, including changing your opinion or apologizing.
First, thank you for letting me know that this theme is supposed to be compatible with the new Treesitter version and that therefore some other part of my setup must be the cause.
However, I take great issue with the idea that
additional_vim_regex_highlighting = falsestill works with the new version.I have used every conceivable variant of the setup command -
require'string'.setupvsrequire('string').setup, usingnvim-treesittervsnvim-treesitter .config, usingsetup({})vssetup {}- and not a single one of them could causeadditional_vim_regex_highlighting = falseto produce results even slightly different from= true. The only time there was any visible change at all was when I tried usingnvim-treesitter.configsas the string, which generated an error and made the rest of my config not load.Finally, as per This response to a Treesitter Issue, "What's in the README exists; what's not in the README is gone without replacement."
additional_vim_regex_highlighting = falseis not in the README, which now leads me to believe that it doesn't exist inmain.As for the documentation issue, I had not read that issue response as of creating this discussion, which lead me to believe that
additional_vim_regex_highlighting = falsestill existed inmaindocfolder, the entirety of Treesitter's documentation appears to exist inREADME.mdanddoc/nvim-treesitter.txt. The "new way of settingadditional_vim_regex_highlighting = false" (read: one that produces any visible results whatsoever) could not be found in either of those files, therefore it is not documented anywhere.The situation was made worse by the fact that every Issue and Discussion regarding the
mainbranch that mentionedadditional_vim_regex_highlighting = falseseemed to end with the maintainer responding with some variation of 'Read the README bozo' while not actually giving any remotely helpful information on how to solve the problem.In other words, the situation as I saw it at the time was that the method of configuring Treesitter had been changed, but nobody had bothered to write the new version down anywhere, and that the maintainer was directing people in search of answers towards a file those answers can't be found in, while also phrasing those directions rudely and presuming that checking that file wasn't the very first thing we'd done. I would definitely describe that situation - how I thought things were - as a case of "extremely poor documentation"
Thank you for your time.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions