--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Feature request: xref-find-definitions in current file |
|
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:43:34 +0100 |
Hi! In certain programming environments (especially object/protocol
oriented ones), it is very common that the same function exists in many
files.
I often find myself needing to jump to a definition I know is in the
file I'm currently working on. xref-find-definitions can make this hard
if there are many candidates.
What I would like is to be able to filter xref-find-definitions to only
show definitions in the currently open buffer. Sort of like what
list-tags does already, but without having to specify the file and
switch to another buffer.
Thanks!
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:40:34 +0100
Message-ID: <m2wpdagb71.fsf@joel@ekstrom.io>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#25593: Feature request: xref-find-definitions in current file |
|
Date: |
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 04:59:39 -0700 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:
> Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:
>
>> On 03.02.2017 10:43, Joel Ekström wrote:
>>
>>> It's funny that you mention counsel-imenu, because counsel/ivy-mode is
>>> actually one of the reasons I wanted this in the first place.
>>> xref-find-definitions displays perfectly in ivy-mode (similar to how
>>> counsel-imenu works),
>>
>> I see what you mean. ivy-mode switches completing-read to its UI.
>>
>> But if there are several locations corresponding to the given name, you'll
>> see
>> them in an *xref* buffer.
>>
>>> I was actually not aware that counsel-imenu exists, so this solves my
>>> problem to some extent.
>>
>> Happy to help. I use it a lot.
>>
>>> That said - having an option to have xref-find-definitions filter by
>>> file would still be useful, since ctags is able to index things that
>>> imenu does not.
>>
>> Maybe that happens too, but my experience is usually the opposite.
>>
>>> However - if it isn't a simple fix then I don't think
>>> it's worth it, since imenu is "good enough".
>>
>> Let's see if someone else wants xref-find-definitions-in-current-file as
>> well,
>> or if they have some other ideas on this issue.
>
> That was 3.5 years ago, and it seems like the bug reporter was happy
> with the proposed alternative.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on the proposal here, or should this be
> closed?
That was 7 weeks ago, and there has been no further comments. I'm
therefore closing this bug now.
--- End Message ---