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

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:01:57 +0300

> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:24:03 +0300
> From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
>     That makes a lot of sense when the candidates are equally likely to be
>     The One that the user's looking for.  In the case of etags I think the
>     problem comes from the substring matching it uses.
> 
> etags puts some effort into returning the candidates in the most plausible way. Should we ignore that? etags--xref-find-definitions tries to honor it, at least according to the comment.

etags--xref-find-definitions doesn't honor the etags order well
enough, because it groups the matches by file, whereas the etags
back-end returns them ungrouped.