5 ms·
Meta-note: do you have any concerns about overloading the name "Codex"? There are quite a few software products and companies named this. This is pretty cool.
by joshka 4y ago
Meta-note: do you have any concerns about overloading the name "Codex"? There are quite a few software products and companies named this.
This is pretty cool. I wonder though if the tree sitter query syntax is the right thing to directly expose. This is definitely useful beneath the hood for people writing specific refactoring patterns, but it would seem overkill for general dev. Is there some syntax that looks closer to regexes for this (tree sitter inside regex rather than regex inside tree sitter)?
I wonder if attacking this problem at one level up say the LSP level could be a good idea.
- gushogg-blake 4y agoI've renamed it to CodeMatch for now, still taken but hopefully not by anything too similar.
- gushogg-blake 4y agoCodeMatch sounded too much like a dating site: https://codepatterns.vercel.app/ https://codepatterns.vercel.app/
- rockwotj 4y ago> Is there some syntax that looks closer to regexes for this (tree sitter inside regex rather than regex inside tree sitter)? I wonder if you could add escapes for specific syntax features, something like: \z{FunctionName=Foo}
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gushogg-blake 4y agoYeah that is definitely a concern, I mostly just needed a name so went with it - another canidate was CodeExp going with the regex/p analogy. But definitely open to something else entirely. Yes a simpler syntax would be good - I was surprised at how complex the query got for the use case I designed it for. I do like the separation of queries and regex though, and keeping the whole structure as regex and queries inside plain text, as it starts you off in the simplest mode (just text) and lets you add flexibility as needed (although it does mean some chars have to be escaped).