Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>]

On 27/11/2023 17:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:01:58 +0200
>> Cc: Felician Nemeth<felician.nemeth@gmail.com>,
>>   Spencer Baugh<sbaugh@janestreet.com>,emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>>   Eshel Yaron<me@eshelyaron.com>, John Yates<john@yates-sheets.org>,
>>   Ergus<spacibba@aol.com>, Filipp Gunbin<fgunbin@fastmail.fm>
>> From: Dmitry Gutov<dmitry@gutov.dev>
>>
>> On 27/11/2023 16:49, João Távora wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Dmitry Gutov<dmitry@gutov.dev>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> (that's what the completing-read approach is for), and whenever we find
>>>> out that particular kinds get supported by many backends (or by most of
>>>> the available/popular ones), we could "pull them into the core", adding
>>>> a global command with one binding which would work across languages.
>>> Alright, so since this is contentious (who else but you is pushing
>>> this idea?)
>> Indeed, I wonder if nobody else is interested in having the additional
>> commands have pre-defined bindings, or having the same bindings across
>> languages.
> I might be interested, but you guys have a tendency to drown the
> important issues in an ocean of second- and third-order stuff.  It is
> very hard to follow this discussion, with its longish posts and a lot
> of barely-related issues and arguments.

That's moderately insulting. To me, at least.

> Maybe it's time to post some kind of summary?

I just posted a summary on 24/11/2023, 03:37 +02:00. Do you perhaps have 
any questions related to it?

One of the disagreements is on whether Xref should have any new 
kind-commands, such as xref-find-declarations, xref-find-implemenetation 
and xref-find-type-definitions which you can find on the branch 
feature/xref-find-extra (the diff is not big, you can take a look).

Or whether definitions like that should be reimplemented by every Xref 
backend that wants to use them, and the backends would themselves pick 
the key bindings for them (or leave unbound).

The usefulness of this also depends on whether we can appoint a 
comfortable binding for the prefix map for the new commands. In the 
prototype I've used "M-'" -- a binding currently occupied by a command 
that I've never used in my life, which others here seemed to agree with 
-- but any other alternative can be considered, of course.