Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files.

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:12:31 +0300

> Cc: [email-masked]
> From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 03:09:54 +0300
> 
> On 05/28/2015 07:34 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > But having just qualified tags is bad for accuracy, right?
> 
> Maybe. Depends on things we would add to the Lisp code.

Can you elaborate?  Is there a way to get the same accuracy and
completion without having both qualified and unqualified tags?

> > So do we have a decision here?
> 
> If you want my opinion (please keep in mind: not an etags user), 
> following in Exuberant Ctags's footsteps sounds best. Nobody ever got 
> fired for doing that.

Yes, but I think if we change etags to create duplicate tags, we
should have this feature opt-out, unlike Exuberant, otherwise TAGS
created by default will be deficient with xref.  Do you agree?