Re: Towards a cleaner build: tags

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

>>> Should we just remove the command and the custom
>>> binding? Not sure if eshell-mode just set up xref-find-functions as
>>> well. Is it supposed to use a tags table, or find-func.el?
>>
>> I can't see any mention of xref in the eshell files...
>
> Sorry, I meant: Not sure if eshell-mode *should* set up
> xref-find-functions as well.

If it should, how does it do that?

>>> As for viper, I guess the emulation stuff has some UI requrements?
>>> Otherwise we could use xref-find-definitions and
>>> xref-find-definitions-other-window there.
>>
>> The latter is fine, but the call for find-tag is with the next-p parameter:
>>
>>        (if (string= tag "")
>>            (find-tag ex-tag t)
>>          (find-tag-other-window ex-tag))
>>
>> How is that done in terms of xref?
>
> But what does NEXT-P mean in this context? It's not like there has
> been a previous invocation of find-tag, was there?

It seems like the logic is that the first time the function is called,
find-tag-other-window, and the next one it's calling find-tag with
NEXT-P?

> BTW, your last change in this function is clearly inadequate: find-tag
> and xref-find-definitions-other-window present different UIs when
> there's more locations than one. We shouldn't use both in the same
> command.

Ah; I'll revert that patch, then.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no