From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files. Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:46:30 +0300 Message-ID: <831thxvr7d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <555EC552.5010600@swipnet.se> <55606A8F.1020109@swipnet.se> <55606CC7.3010401@yandex.ru> <55606F70.10605@swipnet.se> <83twv31jzg.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5r1hdx.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0v1e5n.fsf@gnu.org> <83lhgczo16.fsf@gnu.org> <55639175.9090005@yandex.ru> <83fv6kysjf.fsf@gnu.org> <556447EF.3050103@yandex.ru> <83bnh7z8c5.fsf@gnu.org> <5564C2C7.5050909@yandex.ru> <837frvywfn.fsf@gnu.org> <55650812.60909@yandex.ru> <83mw0muv5m.fsf@gnu.org> <5569AD7F.2000402@yandex.ru> <83iobautar.fsf@gnu.org> <5569BE61.7010200@yandex.ru> <83a8wmuog6.fsf@gnu.org> <5569D136.90802@yandex.ru> <837frquilf.fsf@gnu.org> <5569F77D.5070903@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433011639 8380 80.91.229.3 (30 May 2015 18:47:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 18:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 30 20:47:10 2015 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 1Yylmn-0006Vh-MB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 20:47:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40227 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yylmn-0001GH-5u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:47:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56570) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yylmj-0001G7-K5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:47:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yylmg-0004jV-7Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:47:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yylmg-0004jR-3b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yylmf-0002cK-SU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:47:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 18:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20629 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20629-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20629.143301160110030 (code B ref 20629); Sat, 30 May 2015 18:47:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2015 18:46:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33724 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YylmK-0002bh-WA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:46:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:36806) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YylmI-0002bR-6C for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 14:46:39 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NP600L00ELHE300@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 21:46:31 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NP600L0JETJA860@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 30 May 2015 21:46:31 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <5569F77D.5070903@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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:103382 Archived-At: > Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:46:37 +0300 > > On 05/30/2015 07:37 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Won't TAGS file with 2 entries for such symbols facilitate more > > correct operation, both from xref-find-definitions and completion? > > I suppose. But that's a separate decision, whether to make it the default. You said "based on correctness". If the 2-entry alternative facilitates more correct operation, that's the alternative we should choose, no? > > Then how will you find or complete on "foo" when the explicit tag is > > "XX::foo"? > > I'd like to repeat that the current choice is between having only > unqualified method names in explicit tags, or having both qualified and > unqualified method names (2 entries per line). > > Having only a qualified entry is not a situation we're going to handle. You elide too much of the previous context, and I cannot afford reading 2 or 3 previous messages to restore that (and please don't rely on my memory too much). So I no longer understand what we are talking about here. Including the pattern (what you call "the implicit tag") in the completion table could serve as context for disambiguating otherwise similar tag names. But if you think it's unneeded, I'm not going to argue.