[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IDE versus emacs
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: IDE versus emacs |
Date: |
Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:01:52 +0200 |
> From: Tima <tima.vaisburd@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 22:43:56 -0700
>
> > I have always used TAGs tables created using the etags comand for
> > this. Then M-. , C-x 5 . and so forth.
>
> Yes, I used TAGs in the past. Well documented in the emacs manual and works
> as expected.
>
> I remember it could not always find the definition though. I think to get on
> par with what people called "IDE" the tag system has to understand the
> language semantics. And this, as Jai said, is indeed what Semantic (a part
> of CEDET) claims to do. I was wondering whether it is the state of the art
> or there is a simpler and better successor.
At least in C and C++, tags never miss a definition for me. My only
problem with tags is that they sometimes show me more definitions
other than what I had in mind that match the symbol I type, either
because of case insensitivity or because of partial matches.
- Re: IDE versus emacs, (continued)
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Óscar Fuentes, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Philipp Haselwarter, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tima, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Bob Proulx, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tima, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Steinar Bang, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Sohail Somani, 2012/10/19
- RE: IDE versus emacs, Drew Adams, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Sohail Somani, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Brandon Betances, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/10/19