emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ru


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 504696d: Etags: yet another improvement in Ruby tags
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:11:50 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/44.0

On 02/05/2016 12:14 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

No.  What comes after the comma must begin with attr_SOMETHING or
alias_method.  The issue being tested here is that we are not in a
state where matches for these are being tried.

    alias_method :qux, :tee, attr_accessor(:bogus)

or

    alias_method :qux, :tee, alias_method(:bogus, :bogus2)

are the main options, I suppose. But they might also look misleading, and indicate that we don't support the paren-using syntax intentionally.

(It's another omission, but AFAICS nobody uses attr_XXX without parens in the context we're interested in.)

But if you ever figure out how to do that with a less abnormal syntax,
feel free to update the test files.

The problem with me updating the tests is I can't revert the corresponding fix and make sure that the test fails without it.

It could also be a good idea to add a Rakefile or a Thorfile to the
ruby-src directory (when I tested the change, I just renamed one of
the other files).  It could be that those present special challenges,
and in any case we should test the file-name rules.

I believe the file-name rules should be tested in a language-agnostic way, or just with one language. There's not much point in having all possible file names in test/etags. Or at least that's how I usually try to write tests: in as orthogonal way as possible.

OK, thanks.  I guess we now have the "best etags in the West" (and in
the East as well), as far as Ruby support is concerned.

You could say so.

It's definitely better than "Exuberant Ctags 5.9~svn20110310" I have installed through the default Ubuntu repositories.

It's better [0] than "Ctag Revival" [1], at least until they add support for qualified tags for Ruby [2], which could take a while.

We're probably better in some things, and worse in others, than "Ripper Tags" [3]. I haven't tried them yet myself.

In any case, it'll give me something to try using day-to-day, when we have at least some solution for tags being out of date (an experimental xref backend that simply rescans the whole project every time comes to mind).

[0] https://github.com/universal-ctags/ctags/issues/408
[1] https://github.com/universal-ctags/ctags
[2] https://github.com/universal-ctags/ctags/issues/524
[3] https://github.com/tmm1/ripper-tags/



reply via email to

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