[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions
From: |
Vitalie Spinu |
Subject: |
Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:49:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
As to my 2nd original point. I think the exclusive approach of tags *or*
dynamic completion is not the correct one. There should be a way to
merge tag candidates with dynamic candidates. Having C/C++ api interface
to higher order languages is a commonality rather than an exception
nowadays.
So maybe xref-identifier-completion-table-function and
xref-find-function should be better lists of functions to allow for
grouped backends?
Vitalie
>>> Vitalie Spinu on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:42:34 +0200 wrote:
>>> Stefan Monnier on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:24:29 -0400 wrote:
>>> 1) `find-tag` (previously bound to M-.) was prompting for a symbol
>>> before jumping to the definition.
>> You can still get the prompt, with C-u.
> That's a bit besides the point. I want my interface to behave exactly
> the same independently of the context at point. I also want consistency
> with all other emacs completion. And, most importantly, I don't want to
> foster bad habits because my brain always chooses the easy path -
> navigate to a symbol instead of C-u.
> C-u is an awkward solution. You always have to think before the actual
> key press. Is the point on a symbol? Do you need that symbol? Is the
> symbol that I need close enough to navigate to it? Shall you press C-u,
> or maybe navigate to an empty space? All this pain for a marginal
> speed-up in a rather corner case.
> On radical UI changes a backward compatible option should be
> provided. Especially in this case with so many arguments against the new
> interface.
> Such changes should be broadly discussed. Somewhat surprisingly the
> thread that started the generalization [1] hasn't touched the issues
> that I have raised.
> So please. Could you please bring the standard Emacs UI back?
> Thank you,
> Vitalie
> [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/176235
- Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Vitalie Spinu, 2015/04/23
- Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/25
- Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/04/25
- Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Vitalie Spinu, 2015/04/25
- Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, João Távora, 2015/04/25
- Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/04/25
- xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, João Távora, 2015/04/26
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/04/26
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/26
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Vitalie Spinu, 2015/04/28
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, João Távora, 2015/04/28
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Vitalie Spinu, 2015/04/28
- Re: xref backends for elisp-related modes Was: Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/28