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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 20629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files.
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:46:30 +0300

> Cc: 20629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:46:37 +0300
> 
> On 05/30/2015 07:37 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Won't TAGS file with 2 entries for such symbols facilitate more
> > correct operation, both from xref-find-definitions and completion?
> 
> I suppose. But that's a separate decision, whether to make it the default.

You said "based on correctness".  If the 2-entry alternative
facilitates more correct operation, that's the alternative we should
choose, no?

> > Then how will you find or complete on "foo" when the explicit tag is
> > "XX::foo"?
> 
> I'd like to repeat that the current choice is between having only 
> unqualified method names in explicit tags, or having both qualified and 
> unqualified method names (2 entries per line).
> 
> Having only a qualified entry is not a situation we're going to handle.

You elide too much of the previous context, and I cannot afford
reading 2 or 3 previous messages to restore that (and please don't
rely on my memory too much).  So I no longer understand what we are
talking about here.

Including the pattern (what you call "the implicit tag") in the
completion table could serve as context for disambiguating otherwise
similar tag names.  But if you think it's unneeded, I'm not going to
argue.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.