From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Help etags parse lisp.j Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:22:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83vb4f6bs7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fuvl6p97.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2kxuk8i.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83a8lt6nen.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458577537 12914 80.91.229.3 (21 Mar 2016 16:25:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 21 17:25:33 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ai2e4-0005M2-P2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58865 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai2e4-0007Eb-8F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:25:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58710) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai2bs-0003ri-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:23:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai2bm-0008O6-Qo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:23:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai2bm-0008O2-NR; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:23:10 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2830 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ai2bm-0005eK-1r; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:23:10 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:40:43 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:202007 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:40:43 -0400 > > > No, evidently because it wants to support K&R function definition: > > How 'bout we add an option to etags whether or not to support > K&R definitions? Thanks. Unfortunately, this is IMO not better than the other alternatives: . in a large enough project, the user doesn't have an easy way of knowing whether she needs K&R support . implementing such an option is not trivial, to say the least, given the complex state machines used by parsing of C-like languages by etags