[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: some additional thoughts on NEARNESS SORT option

From: Gautam Thaker
Subject: Re: some additional thoughts on NEARNESS SORT option
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:09:31 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

Hi Shigio:

To the degree I understand things I agree with below (see comments please):

On 6/25/2015 5:36 AM, Shigio YAMAGUCHI wrote:
Since GLOBAL-6.5 already includes 'nearness sort',
GLOBAL users can understand this concept now.
Let's do continuation.

Gautam wrote:
> I had one more thought on this.
> 1) the highest priority is to find definitions in current directory
> or below this directory. But it seems we can do a little better. How about:
> a) highest prio is if the definition appears in the same file as where M-. is being done.

I agree. How about also accepting a file name as well as a directory name?

--nearness[=start] start may be a file or a directory

[0] If 'start' is a file, output of local search in 'start' file, else nothing. <= ADDED
[1] Output of local search in 'start' directory or the directory part of 'start' <= CHANGED
    except for [0].

I agree w/ [0] and [1] with caveat that in [1], when we are searching not in current directory, priorit should be first to tags at this directory level, and they to sub-directories (if any exists). After that moving up one level the process repeats. If any changes get commited regarding any of this beyond 6.5 release please let me know and I will be happy to test things out.

[2] Output of local search in the parent directory except for [1].
[3] Output of local search in the grandparent directory except for [1]-[2].
(repeat until the project root directory)
[n] Output of local search in the project root directory except for [1]-[n-1].

> b) 2nd highest would be other entries from other files at this directory level.
> c) 3rd highest would be any entries in subdirectory/subdirectories(?)

What is the merit of separating b) and c)?

> d) start to move up on directory at a time as per rules prev. given for -N option.
> 2) And here is yet another "wild" idea. suppose you are looking for definition
> of method "foo()". THe "which-func-mode" can tell you that you are sitting
> in Class A::method bar(). In this case it seems that first choice would be
> if there is a Class A::method foo() since that is one most likely is being sought.
> However, this gets into having to deal w/ which-func-mode to learn more about
> where the point is.  I think 1a) above may get us this indirectly.

I believe this should be argued in other threads.
OK, I will start another thread for this.

Shigio YAMAGUCHI <address@hidden>
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663  C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]