From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files. Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 18:03:18 +0300 Message-ID: <5569D136.90802@yandex.ru> References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> <55606A8F.1020109@swipnet.se> <55606CC7.3010401@yandex.ru> <55606F70.10605@swipnet.se> <83twv31jzg.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5r1hdx.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0v1e5n.fsf@gnu.org> <83lhgczo16.fsf@gnu.org> <55639175.9090005@yandex.ru> <83fv6kysjf.fsf@gnu.org> <556447EF.3050103@yandex.ru> <83bnh7z8c5.fsf@gnu.org> <5564C2C7.5050909@yandex.ru> <837frvywfn.fsf@gnu.org> <55650812.60909@yandex.ru> <83mw0muv5m.fsf@gnu.org> <5569AD7F.2000402@yandex.ru> <83iobautar.fsf@gnu.org> <5569BE61.7010200@yandex.ru> <83a8wmuog6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432998264 30235 80.91.229.3 (30 May 2015 15:04:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 15:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 30 17:04:12 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiJ0-0005u2-NV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 17:04:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39686 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIz-0006DA-IR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:04:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56210) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIw-0006CD-7e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:04:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIt-0002M1-13 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:04:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51911) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIs-0002LQ-T8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:04:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIs-0005qV-3B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:04:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dmitry Gutov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 15:04:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20629 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20629-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20629.143299821122427 (code B ref 20629); Sat, 30 May 2015 15:04:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2015 15:03:31 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33653 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiIM-0005pd-10 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:03:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:34303) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YyiII-0005pO-Od for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:03:28 -0400 Original-Received: by wgv5 with SMTP id 5so83233881wgv.1 for <20629@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cWd+ygj/wNyUcte1nHEeEewM71VHXEOUNvx+DDc8irA=; b=FduwTJRfJrFGZWI6JhkqTy35UwCkWI8OVjyD7qn80xe9DNwU/uPWwTKCfWiARploa8 ADFBzbaRmLqYgn/i+JD5+/aRCoYVptSUEU7sKDxCXsDrHHb51/u7fi5RqqaDWdT4Dxul I7LZCEAMvRiH9vLVRPxuNcnPtfQeljWema6wHX/G+blm5c0JO24sj2Z5JDDu5Am1U3p4 ZvuUwjwX2mxG/ULZEvRCF1vy7uO3ewkk9+ZeIt7av/aiQS68VBfVzqpAi8i344he0kcP KJm8vdinJDTztB44FvskAejHLtCHJ1ILwkThGeYV/Zc5p7ThNL9OqTaN5ij2g1OCrUUL McPg== X-Received: by 10.180.77.136 with SMTP id s8mr5342241wiw.7.1432998201116; Sat, 30 May 2015 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([82.102.93.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id um5sm13145520wjc.1.2015.05.30.08.03.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 May 2015 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 In-Reply-To: <83a8wmuog6.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:103371 Archived-At: On 05/30/2015 05:31 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Feel free to describe a full recipe for comparing. I needed to guess > what you wanted me to test; I'd be happy to just follow instructions > and report back what I saw. I'd rather not bother (let's see if we can conclude this thread of discussion without that). The patch in question is at http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20629#59, and I'm officially withdrawing it. >> - Like you mentioned, it's not always that qualified name occurs in the >> pattern. Sometimes it's creates using curly braces and such, and thus >> can only occur in an explicit tag name (which the discussed patch won't >> account for). Thus, some qualified names would be present in >> completions, and some won't. This is bad. > > Do you have an actual example? AFAIU, this shouldn't happen: etags > only decides that an explicit tag name is unneeded when it can be > deduced from the pattern. So if the explicit tag is not in TAGS, it > means etags.el can find it in the pattern. (Qualified tag names that > are constructed by etags are never in the pattern, so they will always > get explicit tag names.) I believe that the current choice is between "etags produces unqualified tags" and "etags produces both qualified and unqualified tags for lines where the distinction appies" (2 entries per line). In the latter case the patch above is extraneous. So above I'm describing the situation where etags produces unqualified tags (which it currently does, by default). > Yes, but I'd like to make a decision before making the change for > placing 2 entries, so that the number of backward-incompatible changes > could be minimized. I think that would be a mistake. Rather, we should make the choice based on correctness. > Because if tag-exact-match-p finds a match, tag-implicit-name-match-p > will not be invoked, AFAIU. It would, but that's not the point. But yes, the above would make sense. Anyway... > And AFAIU we don't, because the match methods are invoked in order, > until one of them yields a match. Of course the difference in tag-implicit-name-match-p behavior will only matter when tag-exact-match-p returns nil for the entry in question. Which is the case in the example I've given in the previous email. > Which is why there's an explicit tag there. But I'm afraid I don't > see what you meant to demonstrate by this example. Which code will > look for 'edit-abbrevs-map, and under what circumstances? find-tag, for instance. After being asked by the user. Like I said, it's a contrived example (users don't usually bother with names as tricky as this one), but I can try to cook up a more realistic one, if you insist. An Elisp identifier can actually include a quote if it's escaped, but that's not the case with edit-abbrevs-map. >> It's harder to present a realistic case of a user looking for one thing >> and getting another, but the point is, is the Etags parser decided that >> the implicit tag doesn't match the explicit tag, we should ignore the >> former (because we don't really know the way they mismatch). > > I think we already do. Currently, we don't put the implicit tag into the completion table if the explicit tag is present. But we do match implicit tags during navigation, even when an explicit tag is there. The aforementioned patch would include the implicit tag in the completion table anyway. I'm now saying we don't want that, and we also don't want navigation to match implicit tags in the entries that contain an explicit tag as well.