Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>]

On 09/11/2023 22:44, João Távora wrote:
> So I thought, that about 6 months ago we had established that
> "definition" and "reference" are two relatively safe concept to
> keep in xref.el, but other concepts should not be in there,
> because this doesn't scale well and could imposes awkward
> structure and hacks into an unknown number of backends.
> 
> Has everyone changed their mind?

My impression is that the first feedback from our patches actually made 
people excited about things that _weren't_ included in the 
previously-discussed plan, so it seems like a good idea to re-evaluate 
it. Though not necessarily redo it all.

Though I guess this particular mailing list might be biased in favor of 
particular type of users (keyboard-driven, faster interaction as a 
priority).

> What exactly bothers you
> about eglot-find-declaration/implementation/typeDefinition?
> In LSP-land these concepts_do_  make sense, because the
> LSP standard prescribes what servers should do with them.

I think we've actually discovered that these kind of make sense for 
Elisp too. They might not match the current implementation, but 
conceptually, in some future, they might.

Again, not that we will necessarily change Elisp's backend to align with 
LSP, but this makes the notions universal enough, it seems. And yes, 
there might be more specific kinds which I don't know if we're going to 
support directly.