Hacker News Reader

Comment by ninepoints | Hacker News Reader

Either way, all those files need to be marked dirty and reindexed, so I suppose I'm just not sure how the topic at hand is relevant. Is the proposal that we attempt to treat each dirtied file as though incremental edits were imminent? Because this is precisely the wrong assumption you're raising. Ultimately, if you need to reopen a file in order to see changes on disk reflected, that's a bug with your lsp server, nothing more.

View on HN

> Either way, all those files need to be marked dirty and reindexed, so I suppose I'm just not sure how the topic at hand is relevant.

You stated an assumption as part of your argument (only one file is being edited at a time) and that assumption is very often false. If that assumption doesn't matter I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. I stated pretty clearly that I wasn't arguing against your larger point but the assumption you explicitly stated was false.

> Ultimately, if you need to reopen a file in order to see changes on disk reflected, that's a bug with your lsp server, nothing more.

You don't say? It's the kind of misbehavior you get when people make assumptions that are false and bake them into the design of things.

And that assumption is relevant in the context of OPs concern but not yours. You created a different hypothetical and orthogonal situation where the assumption need not apply, and to be honest, I lost the plot a bit. It's possible for there to be a branching set of concerns, each of which having their own set of perfectly valid but otherwise disjoint assumptions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com