From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: UI inconveniences with M-. Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 12:24:31 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3qzpc1c.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83zja6b3tc.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3r5wqwv.fsf@gnu.org> <553EBBBF.6070509@yandex.ru> <838udcwbdc.fsf@gnu.org> <553FFC99.5080701@yandex.ru> <834mnzuedd.fsf@gnu.org> <554161A8.30202@yandex.ru> <83618du3q3.fsf@gnu.org> <5542E486.2010107@yandex.ru> <83k2wsssm8.fsf@gnu.org> <5543632C.6000306@yandex.ru> <834mnwsbfb.fsf@gnu.org> <554392E2.7080109@yandex.ru> <83oam4qh2u.fsf@gnu.org> <5543C97C.6050000@yandex.ru> <83h9rwqf10.fsf@gnu.org> <5543E3CF.5010402@yandex.ru> <83wq0rpe3u.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430558723 3475 80.91.229.3 (2 May 2015 09:25:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 09:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Helmut Eller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 02 11:25:14 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1YoTfd-00008I-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 11:25:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56472 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YoTfc-0002RS-V5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 05:25:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44094) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YoTfK-0002MP-WA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 05:25:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YoTfF-00031m-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 05:24:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:35427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YoTfF-000319-Gh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 05:24:49 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NNP00300TD9TZ00@mtaout24.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2015 12:16:01 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NNP00JF0TQPEZ90@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sat, 02 May 2015 12:16:01 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186130 Archived-At: > From: Helmut Eller > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 11:09:23 +0200 > > On Sat, May 02 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> Thinking about it: for etags it would make sense to group xrefs by name > >> of the TAGS file because etags--xref-find-definitions doesn't sort xrefs > >> "globally"; xrefs are reordered only within a TAGS file. > > > > What if the different TAGS files actually describe the same project, > > like lisp/TAGS and src/TAGS in the Emacs case? > > Always the same: visit-tags-table-buffer returns the TAGS files in a > certain order; say src/TAGS before lisp/TAGS. Within a TAGS file > find-tag-tag-order or etags-xref-find-definitions-tag-order is used for > sorting but in the final result xrefs from src/TAGS always stay before > those from lisp/TAGS. I was asking whether grouping by TAGS file is what the user might want in this case, since, for example in Emacs, the distinction between Lisp primitives implemented in C (and thus mentioned in src/TAGS), and subroutines written in Lisp, does not necessarily exist. Would the users mind that, say, forward-line is separated from forward-paragraph? I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it is worth considering.