[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp
From: |
Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:06:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> > I suggest to try (I did). Maybe then you will be less radical in your
>> > judgment of having N+1 candidates when only N are strictly needed.
>>
>> Adding an overload to just make an specific case work on certain
>> completion package is unacceptable, to say it mildly.
>
> I don't know what exactly you tried, and why did you decide I was
> doing unacceptable things, but what I actually tried was clang. After
> adding the above line, it only shows one candidate, whereas I think it
> should have shown 2. IMO, showing more candidates than strictly
> necessary is a lesser evil than showing less than necessary.
It shows only 'bar' to me (and another, broken option, which probably
means the package I tried - company-clang - doesn't handle the output
well enough).
I believe it's the correct result, though. 'char' is the more specific
overload, so the compiler should choose it.
> How many Emacs completion packages that use clang did you try? There's
> only one that I could find
You certainly haven't tried hard. I personally gave you links to several
in this very thread.
>> >> A defective refactoring tool can easily cause more work than it saves.
>> >> It can introduce subtle bugs, too.
>> >
>> > "Defective" is a far cry from "non-strict requirements", don't you
>> > think?
>>
>> A tool that fails on some cases is defective
>
> Then you will surely call Emacs "defective", because most if its
> heuristics are not perfect.
You both might want to step back from generailzations.
The statement about a "defective refactoring tool" is one most
developers would agree.
A good refactoring tool is one you can apply to a large codebase and
then calmly sleep at night without hand-checking every transformation
that it did.
> Why would we be looking for the less-resistance path? It's not like
> clang-using packages are queuing up for inclusion, it actually sounds
> like they don't even exist yet.
Ahem.
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, (continued)
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Engster, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, David Kastrup, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/26
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/02/26
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/26
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/02/26
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/27
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp,
Dmitry Gutov <=
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/27
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/02/27
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, John Yates, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, John Yates, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Dmitry Gutov, 2014/02/28
- Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/02/27