[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: plug-in parser's output
From: |
Hideki IWAMOTO |
Subject: |
Re: plug-in parser's output |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:28:25 +0900 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:47:55 +0900, Shigio Yamaguchi wrote...
> But I feel the doubt in keep the support of plug-in parser.
> Isn't it better to make better built-in parsers?
> What do you think?
I agree that built-in parser is better than external command.
However, I don't consider it worthless that ctags and etags
can be used as parser.
How about adding a converter from `tags' or `TAGS' to `GTAGS'
as alternative of the command layer plug-in?
----
Hideki IWAMOTO address@hidden
- plug-in parser's output, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/07/07
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/07/07
- Re: plug-in parser's output,
Hideki IWAMOTO <=
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/07/18
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/07/18
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/07/19
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/07/20
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/07/20
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Hideki IWAMOTO, 2005/07/20
- Re: plug-in parser's output, Shigio Yamaguchi, 2005/07/20