tree-sitter-cpp

That's what I was looking at in the very beginning. Here's how it unfolds: Grammar page (https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp) reference two documents at the very end: - Hyperlinked C++ BNF Grammar (https://alx71hub.github.io/hcb/) - EBNF Syntax: C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)) https://www.externsoft.ch/download/cpp-iso.html The second doc has a year in the title, so it's ancient af. The first one has multiple `C++0x` red marks (whatever that mean, afair that's how C++11 was named before standardization). It mentions `constexpr`, but doesn't know `consteval`, for example. And doesn't even mention any of C++11 attributes, such as [[noreturn]], so despite the "Last updated: 10-Aug-2021", it's likely pre-C++11 and is also ancient af and have no use in a real world. Who might have thought. /s

The feature isn't working well yet on C and C++. If I recall correctly it's based on Tree-Sitter[1] parsing, and there are still too many bugs in corresponding grammars - tree-sitter-c[2] and tree-sitter-cpp[3]. Hopefully, it will be greatly improved in the future as the share of the existing and newly written code in C and C++ is quite significant. [1] https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/ [2] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-c/issues [3] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp/issues

We do have C and C++ grammars [1,2] but they need some love. You're right that these two languages are among the hardest to support. You could get a tree-sitter external scanner to mimic the preprocessor without too much difficulty, but you'd still run into the problem that your macro definitions might appear in another file. Parsing in general is much easier to implement and reason about if the parse result depends only on the content of the single file that you're looking at. [1] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-c [2] https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp