From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Automatic (e)tags generation and incremental updates Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:35:40 +0200 Message-ID: <67d2bd44-032d-f014-338f-387a07503d9c@yandex.ru> References: <779a6328-9ca5-202a-25a2-b270c66fe6dd@yandex.ru> <8fc5e96c-ebb8-c668-9b2a-c7c4ee54c0b9@yandex.ru> <83r1mwltob.fsf@gnu.org> <0bee9ab4-46bc-b6fd-97b6-e26cc80f1610@yandex.ru> <731c1b21-b3e9-89fe-3751-9c2a528adfba@yandex.ru> <838s7k4ft8.fsf@gnu.org> <5de633e5-05c3-d965-e6b1-b8bb91a8f11a@yandex.ru> <834ki82hbh.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 Cc: philipk@posteo.net, tom@tromey.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, john@yates-sheets.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 20 02:37:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDHCn-0002Tj-Sf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:37:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54982 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDHCm-0001hd-St for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:37:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDHBZ-0000vf-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:35:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::329]:39626) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lDHBV-0000m5-N8; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:35:52 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id v62so9156936wmg.4; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:35:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ih3zPmHzX1xHrOHg2U9GvGJtIYhGj8dFu9t5ekbnTs0=; b=jtXzaE3vCuota9jbviI3OxFu3ppcmRwEDm8H2cKsT/oPVlEg3MzDc+KshxZ8wRbXJY iRL/9mH8BnmOqsK9+ZW7clDtiItElrOK4ktuVZ1eu99B52ePz4NhZNo1KTdizQ5jSzpr r8BJgQSFeLvNDBFhcIQlTvzAke4IHC7eUfTQyRMabJG4fvtOBCdEJaumV1cGwF81iInz qbWqkjKoX9ksxOGwQecxD62DsIN1bvgsq9tify7mNrcKvSJKKeqAids/xtXQurorytfT vqIufQ/rnHqVNHfNQwP5pu1PR73L4FZlVM0n+zetak+qaarTId7AEJmr5mD9U7JyswtT d86A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ih3zPmHzX1xHrOHg2U9GvGJtIYhGj8dFu9t5ekbnTs0=; b=S8t+D7Hb/+tFcd0WSkDS3ypQByRk/6usrjqOrPiCSxm0WQ8unoG/srVBnU+K1rMD8F fhTbRiijQTtKGdHUWwa0aRLQr7SWufl6EFkyYpTQ4lq5ruDKgKjvHve8UNW0/lZq00Va HKdvqg9r8uANxcRLryR7fWc9u45fgRd77oIii9q/rRwk9nY0oCk8UzYoN0bhOjpkIhpi WcvzvXe0C/Qi/VF+8aO1OGL63X3xuGSrJThzILqIuYX/126jVlOAlfNlHZih97XiJ4di ZuS7LeDnKZfCXyLbntgZ69y0z0qGw1Tnk6csrSn4p1oKi/xcv5InT+/aWvV8XX8OW5vQ ahhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rUUDY/ntNDKqEFniaaSUICzek5iXWl043TEnZld2VjG+KZAH5 my1hsBtnp7mgP0y4k+0I6vgl/C7+tx4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvaCR0AvRtzxD3n1x4LwmOx9uvG7T2KC4xDBrhZ4I977CjonfS3/hxls1+7Sf/m4Fn+MNV6w== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a90e:: with SMTP id s14mr10432496wme.36.1613784944292; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:35:44 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.6] ([46.251.119.176]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm21685159wml.3.2021.02.19.17.35.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:35:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <834ki82hbh.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::329; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x329.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:265289 Archived-At: On 19.02.2021 17:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> - ...We add a setting for "etags vendor" and two different code paths >> anyway. In this case the '-L' compatibility will be moot as well, adding >> this extra flag - or not - can easily depend on the "vendor" option. > > It sounds like a fully compatible code is not really possible, so some > test to detect which etags/ctags program will run, with the necessary > code tailored to each of them, seems like the best COA in the long > run. It's a bit more coding, but the differences are fairly minor, so > I don't expect that to be too hard. It's one more source of bugs, because I would personally be using only one of the code paths on the regular basis, and the same might be true for emacs-devel regulars who might try it out. Not too serious a problem, but a problem nevertheless. It also requires us to choose some robust check for which version we're working with. > I also don't mind adding -L, but from what you say it will not be a > complete solution anyway, so what do we gain? I don't have a strong preference and can go with either approach. But in the long run, it might be good for us to have a better level of compatibility with 'ctags -e': less user confusion, for one thing. And for best results, I think we should approach that compatibility from our side (if we do at all), rather than wait for them, because older versions of third-party software will be around for a long time, but we can more or less be sure that Emacs comes with the latest version of etags. FWIW, -L plus a compatibility layer for --regex (translating --regex-lang=abc to --regex={lang}abc) should suffice for etags-regen for the near future. And support for --langmap, maybe (does etags have a counterpart for it at all?).