[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files.
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 22:42:26 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0

On 05/30/2015 09:46 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

You said "based on correctness".  If the 2-entry alternative
facilitates more correct operation, that's the alternative we should
choose, no?

It adds a capability (to perform the search based on fully qualified name), rather than improving correctness.

But again, it's a separate question. You don't have to persuade me on that choice, but I'm inclined toward compatibility with Ex-Ctags.

Then how will you find or complete on "foo" when the explicit tag is

I'd like to repeat that the current choice is between having only
unqualified method names in explicit tags, or having both qualified and
unqualified method names (2 entries per line).

Having only a qualified entry is not a situation we're going to handle.

You elide too much of the previous context, and I cannot afford
reading 2 or 3 previous messages to restore that (and please don't
rely on my memory too much).  So I no longer understand what we are
talking about here.

Sorry, I don't know where to start clarifying. In the previous message I've explained why your question, quoted above, doesn't make sense: the TAGS file must have another entry, for the same line, where the explicit tag is "foo". That one will be matched, not "XX::foo".

This discussion has grown quite long already. Francesco seems to agree with my conclusions, so I'm going to make the change.

Including the pattern (what you call "the implicit tag") in the
completion table could serve as context for disambiguating otherwise
similar tag names.  But if you think it's unneeded, I'm not going to

Here you're using a term that's not part of the usual completion table terminology. Context? Apparently you mean annotation, which would be possible (*), but using the pattern as annotation for the current entry's tag name is not at all the same as including the implicit tag name (derived from the pattern) in the completion table. Which means adding it as a separate element. For simplicity, think of this completion table as a list, especially now it's implemented as such.

(*) But not necessarily advisable, and would bring its own challenge WRT implementation.

reply via email to

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