Re: etags: M-. jump to the tag(called func), but then how can i jump BACK(the calling line)?

[Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com>]

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
 > <dak@gnu.org>], who wrote in article <85d5nfe3oy.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>:
 >>M-* runs the command pop-tag-mark
 >>   which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `etags'.
 >>It is bound to M-*.
 >>(pop-tag-mark)
 >>
 >>Pop back to where M-. was last invoked.
 >>
 >>This is distinct from invoking M-. with a negative argument
 >>since that pops a stack of markers at which tags were found, not from
 >>where they were found.
 >
 > a) Can't parse your last paragraph;

That last paragraph is part of pop-tag-mark's doc string.  To me it
means that if at buffer/point A you move to tag X, then at buffer/point
B you move to tag Y, then at buffer/point C you move to tag Z, then at
buffer/point D:

M-- M-. will take you back to Z, Y, then X
M-*     will take you back to C, B, then A

 > b) I vaguely remember indeed somebody wanting to propagate the code
 >    from imenu-go back into etags; it may be that pop-tag-mark has the
 >    functionality of imenu-go (at least when imenu-go works with tags;
 >    it can get info where-to-jump from other sources too).
 >
 > c) My experience with my code propagated back to Emacs is very
 >    negative: a lot of times the resulting code has only subset of
 >    the original functionality.  So I have no incentive to check how
 >    well pop-tag-mark behaves...

According to etc/NEWS, pop-tag-mark was introduced in Emacs 20.4, but I
can't find any reference to imenu-go in the etc/*NEWS files.  Absent any
evidence in the lisp/ChangeLog* files that pop-tag-mark was derived from
your imenu-go, I think you have plenty of incentive to find out whether
it meets your requirements (and thus obviates your complaint about a
"gaping hole in the Emacs UI").

Thanks,
-- 
Kevin Rodgers