From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Konstantin Kharlamov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023 01:44:12 +0300 Message-ID: References: <83bklin83z.fsf@gnu.org> <865ybmu2ha.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <39e25c9a-b4cc-a0ce-3f2a-1d2a1fc243d0@yandex.ru> <330274c6-7d13-ac55-9cee-e801e91b3255@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8665"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 Cc: Stephen Leake , Eli Zaretskii , Spencer Baugh , Emacs developers , azeng@janestreet.com To: Dmitry Gutov , John Yates , Yuan Fu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 28 23:45:03 2023 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 1pX8iV-00025x-MG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 23:45:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pX8ht-00065j-PT; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:44:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pX8hr-00065U-JG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:44:23 -0500 Original-Received: from forward101a.mail.yandex.net ([2a02:6b8:c0e:500:1:45:d181:d101]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pX8hp-0005hk-Kf; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:44:23 -0500 Original-Received: from vla1-11f05578dcd9.qloud-c.yandex.net (vla1-11f05578dcd9.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0d:4201:0:640:11f0:5578]) by forward101a.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 1661F463BC; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 01:44:14 +0300 (MSK) Original-Received: by vla1-11f05578dcd9.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id CidXOF2bkCg1-kSq2kJEd; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 01:44:13 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1677624253; bh=F+tvYm77YojWkSFWUgLxVllmjipX4MRc7pdZ99yMqp4=; h=References:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID; b=Gh07SR3s77UuVkE8ZlTHik0iBMp3ygQml6+6tH4kyd4TdQZkkD06fk7ddwdbrVz2t eMBUNRHxdFioTPOD4PZZ8e2DljKykRR7OXfbXJKDa4xepw49ii4Kd9pzy2Bc+a67X1 dr/lcrPfagumQX9j3WGx//yStYsJywsmNVK8fVFA= Authentication-Results: vla1-11f05578dcd9.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru In-Reply-To: <330274c6-7d13-ac55-9cee-e801e91b3255@yandex.ru> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:6b8:c0e:500:1:45:d181:d101; envelope-from=hi-angel@yandex.ru; helo=forward101a.mail.yandex.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:303870 Archived-At: I vote for "declaration". I like both "interface" and "declaration", but gi= ven=20 Dmitry's reasoning below, I'm also inclined to vote for "declaration". On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 23:53 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 28/02/2023 23:40, John Yates wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 7:19 PM Yuan Fu=C2=A0 wrote: > > > I think =E2=80=9Cinterface=E2=80=9D is widely used and conveys the me= aning well. Java, > > > Clojure and Javascript call them interfaces, too. > > In the C++ community the term 'interface' is part of the > > vernacular, especially within the TLAs API and ABI. >=20 > But would you call that navigation "jumping to method's interface(s)"? >=20 > AFAIK, in Java you still call the method definitions inside an interface= =20 > (file/entity) "method declarations". Unless it's a "default" method,=20 > available with Java 8+. >=20 > Clojure is similarly able to define Java interfaces (with no special=20 > term for methods enumerated inside, AFAIK), or Protocols (methods inside= =20 > are called "protocol methods", but it would probably be fair to call=20 > them "declarations" as well). >=20 > More importantly, I guess, in both Java or C/C++ you can have method=20 > declarations that are not part of an "interface". E.g. you have some=20 > class with abstract method or several. >=20 > The LSP protocol uses the term "declaration", so we probably won't make= =20 > too much of a mistake reusing that term. But, indeed, it sounds similar= =20 > enough to "definition".