From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= 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 19:01:42 +0200 Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433005342 9713 80.91.229.3 (30 May 2015 17:02:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:02:22 +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 19:02:12 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 1Yyk9D-0006Ki-HW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 19:02:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40032 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk9C-0004po-Ns for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk98-0004pb-Ud for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:02:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk95-0001zX-Ot for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:02:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk95-0001zO-Lf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:02:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk94-00006u-UI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:02:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Francesco =?UTF-8?Q?Potort=C3=AC?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:02:02 +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=B20629.1433005311405 (code B ref 20629); Sat, 30 May 2015 17:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2015 17:01:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33672 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk8s-00006R-1U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:01:50 -0400 Original-Received: from blade3.isti.cnr.it ([194.119.192.19]:4317) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk8n-00006G-B6 for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 13:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from tucano.isti.cnr.it ([146.48.81.102]) by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5-x6 #32097) with ESMTPSA id <01PMLGVBT8C2MEOQ50@mx.isti.cnr.it> for 20629@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 19:01:42 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from pot by tucano.isti.cnr.it with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Yyk8k-0003N3-4V; Sat, 30 May 2015 19:01:42 +0200 In-reply-to: <83a8wmuog6.fsf@gnu.org> X-INSM-ip-source: 146.48.81.102 Auth Done X-fingerprint: 4B02 6187 5C03 D6B1 2E31 7666 09DF 2DC9 BE21 6115 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:103374 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov: > It's harder to present a realistic case of a user looking for one thing > and getting another, but the point is, is the Etags parser decided that > the implicit tag doesn't match the explicit tag, we should ignore the > former (because we don't really know the way they mismatch). ... >Currently, we don't put the implicit tag into the completion table if >the explicit tag is present. > >But we do match implicit tags during navigation, even when an explicit >tag is there. > >The aforementioned patch would include the implicit tag in the >completion table anyway. I'm now saying we don't want that, and we also >don't want navigation to match implicit tags in the entries that contain >an explicit tag as well. Sorry if I don't closely follow the discussion (I do not know all the internals of etags.el), and consequently sorry if I am misanderstanding anything. In that case, please discard my observations below. I fear I can read in the above quotes a fundamental misunderstanding. If Emacs (etags.el or anything else) treats implicit tags differently from explicit tags, that's an error. Implicit tags are semantically the same as explicit tags. Whether a tag is implicit or explicit, it's only a matter of efficiency in building the TAGS file. For a given TAGS file entry, there is either no tag, or an implicit tag, or an explicit tag. The latter two cases should be treated exactly alike by whichever program is reading the TAGS file. Nor is it possible that for a given entry its implicit tag does not match its explicit tag, because either the former or the latter are present, not both.