From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Francesco Potorti` Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: etags confused with uppercase filenames (on Windows) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:43:19 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200204021602.g32G2oS02957@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017825492 27909 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 09:18:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stavros.macrakis@verizon.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16sguC-0007G2-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:18:12 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16sh6E-0004J5-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:30:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgOV-0004xH-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:45:27 -0500 Original-Received: from pot.cnuce.cnr.it ([146.48.83.182]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgMj-0004fw-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:43:37 -0500 Original-Received: from pot by pot.cnuce.cnr.it with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgMR-0003Dm-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:43:19 +0200 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (eliz@fencepost.gnu.org) X-fingerprint: 4B2 6187 5C3 D6B1 2E31 7666 9DF 2DC9 BE21 6115 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2340 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2340 Does it really make sense to have etags behavior be different on different platforms? Especially given the fact that some file you are working on can well come from a Windows system that exports its filesystem? I partly agree with Stefan's observations. I am inclined towards implementing the following behaviour for etags when determining languages. Each line is considered only if the previous ones did not yield any match. 1) use the explicitely given language, if any 2) guess it from the file name (usually from the suffix) 3) guess it from the #! interpreter 4) if file name is all upcased, guess it from the file name without regard to case (usually from the suffix) 5) try Fortran and give a warning if succeded 6) try C/C++ and give a warning (always succeeds) The differences from the current behaviour are that 4) does not currently exists, and 5) and 6) do not currently elicit a warning. Note that 3) is currently used for Perl only, even if other languages using #! may be added in the future. Note also that this behaviour is independent of the platform.