nvim-treesitter / nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter-textobjects
Question: closures intentionally not captured under function.inner/outer ?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Tree-sitter Query
- Stars
- 2.8k
- Forks
- 271
- Avg merge
- 8d 8h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Hello, I noticed that neither c++ nor rust closures are being captured under function.inner/outer. Is this an intentional design decision? Otherwise I could contribute the missing captures to fill this gap. I personally like to treat closure types the same way as regular functions but if that's not intended for the project that's also fine.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by determining whether function.inner/outer is intended to capture closure types for C++ and Rust. The issue names no files or tests, so first locate the queries or entry points that define these captures and compare their treatment of regular functions. Done means either confirming the design decision or adding consistent closure captures with coverage for both languages.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100