Re: xref-find-matches and stuff

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 05/08/2015 09:42 PM, Vitalie Spinu wrote:

> Ok. Then that's not something that I would be happy with. If I want a
> symbol which is in the 2nd backed but nor in the first one, then there
> is no way I can access that symbol.

And my point is, the backends should be made well enough that you 
generally won't want to use a symbol from the 2nd backend that isn't in 
the first one. Ideally because there will be no such symbols.

I'm sure there can be situations when people might still want to merge 
backends, but imenu+etags+major mode, so far, doesn't make a convincing 
case.

> I also don't think that backends that provide more symbols should be
> given priority over backends which produce fewer but more targeted
> candidates.

We won't prioritize more vs fewer. Instead, the elements in 
xref-backends will be positioned in the order of priority. The first 
(thus, higher priority) backend that returns a non-nil completion table, 
will be used.