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 21:13:30 +0300 Message-ID: <5569FDCA.4030801@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: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433009661 10939 80.91.229.3 (30 May 2015 18:14:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 18:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org To: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 30 20:14:10 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 1YylGr-0002JS-K6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 20:14:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40167 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGq-0007W6-Jx for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51257) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGn-0007W1-Q4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:14:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGk-0002V5-Jz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:14:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51970) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGk-0002V1-GO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:14:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGk-0001p4-7M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:14:02 -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 18:14:02 +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=B20629.14330096216968 (code B ref 20629); Sat, 30 May 2015 18:14:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2015 18:13:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33712 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGO-0001oK-Ux for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:13:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:37488) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YylGN-0001o8-IZ for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:13:40 -0400 Original-Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so59201874wif.0 for <20629@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:13:34 -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=XM4RJPXTFozVDWLjkl/EtapA2T17kLFJNNr1Rh+8gfI=; b=xRhDZ3B2teugzozPbe4yTpY3Q357qGhw6nWDB5V5HoeLDKlG48aFgyPETlTdgSTfxI GHqJxexHrsFEyHXiBaB2wqmNDs6/aVAV09dZ07XAuRmL48nLCUbLccBLsx0Abh5wRfdx 6WsWAg9Oun4sAp7334cRwpUZe+MhSLTNiLEgT6mDNQaV07McxuP5+sOo7m/SZCeXW8q9 XDhEZTjsBRH+wDnRCVQERM6ImwHOMli1WVbDgDSXxtDJvbmy/+Kd91Xzj5DOY60TIED9 4Y783Jb10zacGKhpTjX5KSYB5omIin3AgUPX23oNqD7X+9cvtBbqegZy3qHxA0t0ddbS m03w== X-Received: by 10.180.99.69 with SMTP id eo5mr6278335wib.92.1433009614071; Sat, 30 May 2015 11:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([82.102.93.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o6sm8507124wiz.24.2015.05.30.11.13.33 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 May 2015 11:13:33 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 In-Reply-To: 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:103379 Archived-At: On 05/30/2015 08:01 PM, Francesco Potort́ wrote: > Sorry if I don't closely follow the discussion (I do not know all the > internals of etags.el), and consequently sorry if I am misanderstanding > anything. In that case, please discard my observations below. I don't think I'm misunderstanding: it's mainly a problem of terminology. > I fear I can read in the above quotes a fundamental misunderstanding. > If Emacs (etags.el or anything else) treats implicit tags differently > from explicit tags, that's an error. It has different predicates, to determine whether point is after an "implicit tag name" for a given string. Or whether it's after an "explicit tag name", or some other kind of match. > Implicit tags are semantically the same as explicit tags. Whether a tag > is implicit or explicit, it's only a matter of efficiency in building > the TAGS file. For a given TAGS file entry, there is either no tag, or > an implicit tag, or an explicit tag. Maybe we should say that there's always a "tag name", for a given entry. And we can determine it by looking at the tag name field, or, in the absence of it, implicitly determine from the pattern. It's easier to call the value of the tag name field an "explicit tag", and the value that we can derive from the pattern an "implicit tag". And if the explicit tag is present, naturally they'll be different. > The latter two cases should be > treated exactly alike by whichever program is reading the TAGS file. > Nor is it possible that for a given entry its implicit tag does not > match its explicit tag, because either the former or the latter are > present, not both. This confirms that we should always disregard implicit tag when the explicit tag is present.