From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mike Kupfer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#22692: 25.0.91; xref-find-definitions fails to prompt Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:01 -0800 Message-ID: <2249.1456025761@allegro.localdomain> References: <20283.1455584523@allegro.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456025852 13469 80.91.229.3 (21 Feb 2016 03:37:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 22692@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 21 04:37:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1aXKpd-000565-0y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 04:37:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37621 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKpZ-0002g0-3K for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:37:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59747) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKpV-0002fi-9r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:37:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKpS-0006JB-1j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:37:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:38582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKpR-0006J6-V6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:37:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKpR-0002Xw-NT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:37:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mike Kupfer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22692 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 22692-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22692.14560257669726 (code B ref 22692); Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:37:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22692) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Feb 2016 03:36:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35709 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKoY-0002Wo-57 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:36:06 -0500 Original-Received: from shell1.rawbw.com ([198.144.192.42]:56814 ident=root) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aXKoV-0002We-Vq for 22692@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:36:04 -0500 Original-Received: from allegro.localdomain (m208-249.dsl.rawbw.com [198.144.208.249]) by shell1.rawbw.com (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id u1L3a1Hi071855; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from m.kupfer@acm.org) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.rawbw.com: Host m208-249.dsl.rawbw.com [198.144.208.249] claimed to be allegro.localdomain In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:45:41 +0200." <83twl3py6i.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 25.0.91 Content-ID: <2248.1456025761.1@allegro.localdomain> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:113390 Archived-At: Hmm, I'm afraid I've gotten lost in all the recent discussion. If the documentation is made consistent with the (default) behavior, that would address my core concern. But it sounds like finding the right wording ("at" versus "at or near") is a problem because different backends could have different behavior. If that's true, would "at, or possibly near" (or something like that) work? I'd still like for "valid" to be removed from "valid identifier" because of the ambiguity about what counts as "valid" in this context. mike