Not really. It uses S-expressions but Scheme pattern matching is totally different. The most common Scheme pattern matching syntax is basically the same as pattern matching in any other language: x means “bind the value at this position to x”, not “the child node of type”. See: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Pattern-... or syntax-rules.
It’s as much a Scheme dialect as WASM’s S-expression form is a Scheme dialect.
Treesitter’s query syntax is slightly understandable in the sense that having x match a node among siblings of type x works well for extracting values out of sibling lists. Most conventional pattern syntaxes struggle with this, e.g. how do you match the string “foo” inside of a list of strings in OCaml or Rust without leaving the match expression and resorting to a loop?
But you could imagine a syntax-rules like use of ellipses …. There’s also a more powerful pattern syntax someone worked on for implementing Scheme-like macros in non-S-expression based languages whose name escapes me right now.
It’s as much a Scheme dialect as WASM’s S-expression form is a Scheme dialect.
Treesitter’s query syntax is slightly understandable in the sense that having x match a node among siblings of type x works well for extracting values out of sibling lists. Most conventional pattern syntaxes struggle with this, e.g. how do you match the string “foo” inside of a list of strings in OCaml or Rust without leaving the match expression and resorting to a loop?
But you could imagine a syntax-rules like use of ellipses …. There’s also a more powerful pattern syntax someone worked on for implementing Scheme-like macros in non-S-expression based languages whose name escapes me right now.