GNU bug report logs -
#20629
25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files.
Previous Next
Reported by: "Jan D." <jan.h.d <at> swipnet.se>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 05:59:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 25.0.50
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #140 received at 20629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 20629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 02:48:57 -0400
>
> Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>
> > If you want my opinion (please keep in mind: not an etags user),
> > following in Exuberant Ctags's footsteps sounds best.
>
> I'm not one either, but I've been meaning to ask: why is etags in Emacs?
The answer to that is lost in history (for me). Perhaps Richard and
Francesco (cc'ed) will remember.
But since it is here, it is, IMO, a Good Thing, because we can easily
affect its operation where it's important to us. Especially lately,
when the front-end was changed, and the new one has different
expectations.
> It's my (superficial) impression that etags hasn't progressed much since
> then. The majority of the changes seem to have been generic code-cleanup
> stuff.
That's not true, there were a couple of non-trivial changes lately
that are not cleanups, and I think there will be one more soon. This
thread discusses some of them, the other one is discussed here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-05/msg00291.html
> Is it that etags recognizes Emacs-specific C code that ctags does not?
Which ctags do you allude to here? There are quite a few of them out
there.
> My only motivation for asking is that it's good to reduce the number of
> things that need to be maintained in Emacs, where possible.
I don't think we should remove this one, no.
This bug report was last modified 9 years and 69 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.