From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#22692: 25.0.91; xref-find-definitions fails to prompt Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 02:43:52 +0200 Message-ID: <56CBAB48.6000209@yandex.ru> References: <23698.1455674128@allegro.localdomain> <56C71C1D.8010502@yandex.ru> <83r3g8r8qz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456188324 6736 80.91.229.3 (23 Feb 2016 00:45:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 22692@debbugs.gnu.org, m.kupfer@acm.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 23 01:45:15 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 1aY16F-0000bB-NN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:45:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aY16F-0004Ii-3u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:45:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41129) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aY16B-0004Gu-8p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:45:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aY166-0004jY-54 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:45:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41551) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aY166-0004jU-1q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:45:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aY165-0006rl-Th for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:45:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dmitry Gutov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:45:01 +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=B22692.145618824226309 (code B ref 22692); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:45:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22692) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Feb 2016 00:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38678 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aY157-0006qH-S2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:44:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:34947) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aY155-0006pg-Uy for 22692@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:44:00 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c200so197195386wme.0 for <22692@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:43:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IbTGT6KMYkbDaZa+nRl7XtfOZyDLImg0kycLhJGwc7M=; b=jcsylyk9gru0ibPEXyh3GFLQRejsT/6nOGRxpuRHa4MQKNX5zZKNDfvMLuG9sFAt8L Vh/2lSHiLmeh2Is8BZ6ArcP7x62lZqiQxqHUMELsbR7LacNfgHfctPBROdkRYNfeimWb NVsZ8Dj+Pm26kxflFXNYVk24HRiMcbrWvpgyIXGjQhyO3awcEqKd1xnQlVA/zK7zLRc9 4oXEZQHR04Pbir8bsG3W9Ll5/TM4YqyYA0D5QKBdVB8os3rx+g1CXiYvMiJfxMxEZ/km 2gN3aXzRhUDp2rQI2TNC2ti0nfwDcAlHY38a1PiFNvXpbiR/QjUQTgtAc57hQHE9eu77 dQyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IbTGT6KMYkbDaZa+nRl7XtfOZyDLImg0kycLhJGwc7M=; b=ZzhLrFJVVJRQ5Q6LG1sXzo+4V5JDWEjl5fyCjGhbmJkNidVCF4dr4Oh8Nk/3XOhTK3 cPDa4l0hf4OJ39Vf9izojtHEgDuzwzcMsnmFb/Att0+Y9T0xowPNrml98Rmx/zUrkq1/ nxgOaCtSaoVbiWXOtwHZJW5z4SsYBbet1r1xo5g2msbWc7kcbro9gC6CedmH98ZH9MEy Hoj8WXukEmCgN5b0M+rLX9Rz9j5cAaVrMg23j/ZYXk7KVJfUbsgdsRfHm0D8CGBByWDu Gcy2wCivQtbU2aJzu9BcI243P+s19F6yx896aZX+v1WhUjsgH88W63Kc16fI7Jt6p2YC 1o9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORuoZlJU8dr3vnRka6OfcvDJ96BHH5E6l1ucMZY6RzDRNThFLjMsMb1CXWzVZgHQg== X-Received: by 10.194.91.233 with SMTP id ch9mr30483242wjb.121.1456188234361; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:43:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([185.105.175.24]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id n131sm23380892wmf.9.2016.02.22.16.43.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:43:53 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/44.0 In-Reply-To: <83r3g8r8qz.fsf@gnu.org> 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:113504 Archived-At: On 02/19/2016 05:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> Does "valid identifier" mean syntatically correct, or does it mean that >>> the identifier is in the tags table. Please clarify the documentation. >> >> We probably should just remove the word "valid" from there. > > That depends on how you will change the behavior ;-) I've changed it like we discussed. However, after reading the quoted text, I'm not quite sure we need to remove "valid". To my eyes, "valid identifier" in that text means "syntactically valid", rather than "an identifier defined somewhere in the current project". The latter would be "an existing identifier", I guess? But that's my impression. If that word raises questions, maybe it doe need clarification, or a replacement. The only option that came to my mind, however, is more unwieldy: "discernible identifier", and it doesn't mean the same thing. The two other uses of "valid identifier" we have inside Emacs (in cc-vars.el and idlwave.el) also mean "syntactically valid". Mike, thoughts?