Improved Concrete Syntax Trees about micromark HOT 5 CLOSED

Are there any plans for improved concrete syntax tree support in the future?

It would mean a different syntax tree that is hard to manage as it is so verbose.
micromark was made to allow making a CST. There have been several discussions about it over the years: https://github.com/search?q=CST+user%3Awooorm+user%3Amicromark+user%3Aremarkjs+user%3Asyntax-tree&type=Issues
It would be cool to have, but it’s also a ginormous effort to design a concrete syntax tree, and would affect many things in unified.

If not would PRs be welcome to record syntactic information on syntax tree nodes, as well as in the corresponding serializers?

I’m against adding such information on abstract syntax tree nodes, as I think ASTs by definition should not have such information: they’re supposed to be lossy and easy to handle.

Otherwise, any advice for implementing this feature as a set of plugins would be appreciated!

You can detect such information, similar to how remark-lint detects such information, in a plugin. It could record that information and turn it into an object that mdast-util-to-markdown expects

from micromark.

Hi! It seems you removed the template which we require. Here are our templates (pick the one you want to use and click *raw* to see its source):

I won’t send you any further notifications about this, but I’ll keep on updating this comment, and hide it when done!

Thanks,
— bb

from micromark.

^-- this is my fault I think

from micromark.

Hi! Thanks for reaching out! Because we treat issues as our backlog, we close issues that are questions since they don’t represent a task to be completed.

See our support docs for how and where to ask questions.

Thanks,
— bb

from micromark.

Hi! This was closed. Team: If this was fixed, please add phase/solved. Otherwise, please add one of the no/* labels.

from micromark.