From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] etags/ctags v22.0.92 break Linux kernel `make TAGS/tags` Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:35 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1166990491.2706.205.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1167529610 22116 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2006 01:46:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dwm@meer.net, od@suse.de, darren@users.sourceforge.net, Bram@vim.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 31 02:46:46 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H0pmZ-0007gv-O8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:46:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0pmZ-0004Pb-4a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:46:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0plp-0003xC-Cn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:53 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H0plo-0003wb-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:53 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0plo-0003wJ-IN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H0pln-0000Kn-Ie for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:51 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1H0plX-0004xi-4I; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:45:35 -0500 Original-To: Francesco Potorti` In-reply-to: (message from Francesco Potorti` on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:15:55 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:64539 Archived-At: Now I am asking: is there really any reason why Ctags should not create duplicate entries? Why not creating duplicate entries by default? The only drawback would be that the old Vi would jump to an unpredictable one, but the current behaviour is not much better, because only the first duplicate tag is created, the others are not included in the tags file. That seems plausible. And why care about the old (non-free) vi anyway? Olaf Dabrunz cites this proposed standard, used by at least Exhuberant ctags and Vim: , where the issue is better explained. I cannot access that page. If this is relevant, would you please explain how? In summary, I have three proposals for a change to Ctags, preferred first: 1. Duplicate entries are created, no warnings issued 2. Duplicate entries are created, warnings issued as they are now 3. An option is provided to create duplicate entries I see no harm in #1 if that is what people would generally prefer.