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: Help etags parse lisp.j Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:24:42 +0200 Message-ID: <83shzi4h11.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fuvl6p97.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2kxuk8i.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83a8lt6nen.fsf@gnu.org> <56EFA8B2.90904@cs.ucla.edu> <83y49b6cce.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458663925 25301 80.91.229.3 (22 Mar 2016 16:25:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 22 17:25:20 2016 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 1aiP7Q-0007K1-4H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:25:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38290 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiP7M-00085f-Cj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40471) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiP7D-00081D-Ui for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:25:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiP78-0001qC-VJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:25:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58614) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiP78-0001q8-Rt; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4139 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aiP78-0001E0-3F; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:25:02 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:46:59 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:202074 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:46:59 -0400 > > > TYPE0 foo (arg1, arg2, arg3, ..., argN) > > The first potential difference here is that each arg is > a single identifier. Of course, in non-K&R declarations, this can also > be the case, but at least if there's a *, a [..], or two identifiers > without a comma between them, then we know already it's not K&R. I thought about this, but concluded that it's too unreliable (as you point out). > > Hmm... can we use the fact that in a K&R definition, the last token > > before the opening brace "{" of the body is always a semicolon? So if > > there's no semi-colon there, then it's a function that needs to be > > tagged? (Of course, the semicolon could be hidden behind some clever > > macro, but I think we don't need to cater to such uses.) > > Sounds fine, yes, I will try to do something useful with this.