[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Generalizing find-definition
From: |
Jorgen Schaefer |
Subject: |
Re: Generalizing find-definition |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:28:40 +0100 |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:44:54 +0100
Helmut Eller <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17 2014, Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Some initial patch attached.
>
> I'm proposing an alternative implementation.
Fine with me, too, as long as I have a trivial way of providing common
functionality. (M-. is by far not the only place.)
I did not see any tests in the repo, did I look in the wrong spot?
Before I continue to put work into this, Stefan, which way do you
prefer - functions or EIEIO?
Jorgen
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, (continued)
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stephen Leake, 2014/11/19
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/19
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/18
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stephen Leake, 2014/11/19
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/19
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Jorgen Schaefer, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Helmut Eller, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition,
Jorgen Schaefer <=
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Helmut Eller, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Jorgen Schaefer, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/20
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, martin rudalics, 2014/11/21
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/30
- Re: Generalizing find-definition, Johan Claesson, 2014/11/23
Re: Generalizing find-definition, Stephen Leake, 2014/11/02