[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: eww
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: eww |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:28:37 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:04:57 -0500
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden,
> Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>
> > What does it need, then?
>
> Nothing at all. This problem with etags exists already with many other
> macros and noone cares. That's just life: etags is approximate, it
> includes unneeded elements and lacks some elements it should have.
> It is still 99% correct for Elisp, so some people use it very happily,
> but there's no point uglifying the code just to try and make it work
> 99.01% instead.
If tagging those is important, we could use the --regex option to
etags.
- Re: eww, (continued)
- Re: eww, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/15
- Re: eww, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/15
- Re: eww, Nicolas Richard, 2014/01/15
- Re: eww, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/16
- Re: eww, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/16
- Re: eww, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: eww, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/18
- Re: eww, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/18
- Re: eww, Francesco Potortì, 2014/01/19
- Re: eww, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/20
- Re: eww, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Francesco Potortì, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Bastien, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/17
- Re: eww, Bastien, 2014/01/17