Subject: Re: bug#22241: 25.0.50; etags Ruby parser problems

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:43:15 +0300

On 01/31/2016 06:37 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Right, that part is not implemented.  Perhaps later.  Is it terribly
> important?

Exuberant Ctags doesn't do it. I suppose it's rather a missing feature 
than a bug.

It's fine if it's not in 25.1, but let's keep the bug open until it's 
implemented.

>> Third, this is tangential, but I don't think anybody uses the .ruby
>> extension for Ruby files (you can see it's not in auto-mode-alist). But
>> maybe someone somewhere will use it for something else, and etags will
>> erroneously parse that file as Ruby?
>
> I found that on the Internet, I can try to find that again.

Please do.

>> On the other hand, you might want to add *.ru, *.rbw, Rakefile and
>> Thorfile to the list of Ruby file names.
>
> That's easy to add.  Should we?

I believe so. *.ru is a bit questionable (it's not an official Ruby 
extension, and it might be used by some other file formats), but it's 
used by a very popular Ruby library for web application init scripts, 
and those can contain different definitions (in practice, mostly 
constants, although it can have functions defined, if the application is 
tiny, or somehow exotic). *.rbw is the Windows extension for Ruby 
programs that don't need the cmd window. Rakefile and Thorfile can also 
contain definitions (usually constants, but not necessarily just them, 
in the former, and classes and methods in the latter).