[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#19466: 25.0.50; xref-find-def doesn't find C functions

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#19466: 25.0.50; xref-find-def doesn't find C functions
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:43:47 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/33.0

On 01/21/2015 06:25 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

Can the package that uses xref modify that string?  If so, we don't
need a single-fits-all phrase.

It can't, right now. But it would have to be modified by the used command (find-definitions/references/apropos), not the package.

If we do need a single phrase, then how about "go to

I've settled on "follow reference" for now.

Perhaps you could ask what issues need to be resolved for you to
understand the requirements.

Someone would have to gather them, and participate in the discussion about the tradeoffs.

AFAICS you've pretty much stopped formulating the requirements at "there should be a way to use the tags.el backend instead of the major mode's backend". That's not good enough for me.

If you can show me the complete Lisp, I can try that and return

That would be good, but unless you declare one of them good enough, participation in the technical discussion will also be needed.

Messages 32 and 41 include functional implementations you can try. The
patches that would go into Emacs won't be much different, we'd just have
to decide on code organization.

The recipe in #32 is clearly incomplete.  Not sure about 41.

It's only incomplete because I expected you'd be able to turn on the minor mode defined there yourself, in any Emacs Lisp buffers you like.

Here's the "missing piece" for #32:

(defun elisp-maybe-turn-on-xref-etags-mode ()
  (when (and buffer-file-name
             (string-prefix-p source-directory buffer-file-name))

(add-hook 'emacs-lisp-mode-hook 'elisp-maybe-turn-on-xref-etags-mode)

Which part of it was hard?

Once again, if you can show a complete Lisp to try, I will.

To my knowledge, #41 was/is quite complete.

reply via email to

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