[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files. |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:45:20 +0200 |
> Cc: 20629@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 05:54:39 +0200
>
> On 11/26/2015 06:32 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > It wasn't done because the discussion didn't reach any consent.
>
> FWIW, I left it with understanding that we should learn to generate both
> qualified and unqualified tag names for C++. Whether to do that by
> default or not, I'm not sure.
>
> But Exuberant Ctags defaults to the latter option, and only generates
> unqualified tag names by default. It would be a good idea to follow
> suit, for consistency if nothing else.
>
> And I'd like to revisit your previous comment:
>
> > Including the pattern (what you call "the implicit tag") in the
> > completion table could serve as context for disambiguating otherwise
> > similar tag names.
>
> Even if that can work in many cases (patterns are displayed in the xref
> buffer, for example), pattern won't necessarily contain the qualified
> name either.
>
> In Java, it never will, as long as the pattern is created from the
> contents of the line with the method's definition (because there's no
> class name on that line).
>
> In C++, it won't if the method is defined inside the class definition
> (Java-style), which seems to be recommended for short methods.
As we now have a dedicated feature request (bug#22995), I'm closing
this bug.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#20629: 25.0.50; Regression: TAGS broken, can't find anything in C++ files.,
Eli Zaretskii <=