3 ms·

Is this significantly better than the typical `nvim-treesitter-textobjects`[0] / `nvim-various-textobjs`[1] workflow? [0]: https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/n

Is this significantly better than the typical `nvim-treesitter-textobjects`[0] / `nvim-various-textobjs`[1] workflow? [0]: https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter-textobjects https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter-textobjec... [0]: https://github.com/chrisgrieser/nvim-various-textobjs https://github.com/chrisgrieser/nvim-various-textobjs

hou32hou 2y ago
I think it's significantly better, because you don't need to know the specific type of node you want to select. In Ki, you only need to use `s` for any syntax node, while in nvim-treesitter-textobject, you need to use `vaf` for functions, `vac` for classes, and so on. Additionally, this also depends on how well the Tree-sitter queries are written, or if they're written at all.