Subject: Re: bug#19468: 25.0.50; UI inconveniences with M-.

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:42:49 -0400

>> BTW, w.r.t the use of etags, what do you think of the patch below, which
>> lets the elisp-xref functionality fallback on etags for functions/vars
>> that aren't currently bound?
> What's it supposed to do?

Let you find the definition of a function that's not defined yet, thanks
to the use of the TAGS database.

> Anyway, I once again think that if we will mostly "fall back on etags"
> every time the new back-ends are somehow imperfect, then what exactly
> did we gain with this move?

I just suggest it to cover those cases where the user likes the old
etags behavior.  I personally preferred using C-h f until now over
etags's M-. because it was more reliable, so I find the new M-. to be
a good change and don't need to fallback to etags's backend.

> ... I won't mind this alternative, either, although we don't have too
> many keys left to use for those other commands.

They don't have to be single-key bindings.

        Stefan