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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #274 received at 20629-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 20629-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything
 in C++ files.
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:45:20 +0200

> Cc: 20629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 05:54:39 +0200
> 
> On 11/26/2015 06:32 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > It wasn't done because the discussion didn't reach any consent.
> 
> FWIW, I left it with understanding that we should learn to generate both 
> qualified and unqualified tag names for C++. Whether to do that by 
> default or not, I'm not sure.
> 
> But Exuberant Ctags defaults to the latter option, and only generates 
> unqualified tag names by default. It would be a good idea to follow 
> suit, for consistency if nothing else.
> 
> And I'd like to revisit your previous comment:
> 
>  > Including the pattern (what you call "the implicit tag") in the
>  > completion table could serve as context for disambiguating otherwise
>  > similar tag names.
> 
> Even if that can work in many cases (patterns are displayed in the xref 
> buffer, for example), pattern won't necessarily contain the qualified 
> name either.
> 
> In Java, it never will, as long as the pattern is created from the 
> contents of the line with the method's definition (because there's no 
> class name on that line).
> 
> In C++, it won't if the method is defined inside the class definition 
> (Java-style), which seems to be recommended for short methods.

As we now have a dedicated feature request (bug#22995), I'm closing
this bug.

Previous Next

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