Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[João Távora]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:46 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2023 15:38, João Távora wrote:
> > I think that is doable, yes.  The question is whether to use the LSP
> > names for them or our "own" names.  I think I prefer the former, to
> > avoid concept creep.  So M-x xref-find-extra would offer
> > "textDocument/findImplementation", "textDocument/findDeclaration",
> > etc when backend reports these operation names (which in turn it does
> > if the server has the associated LSP capability).
>
> I think we'll need readable names -- e.g. "implementations",
> "declarations", "type definitions" (with a space or dash, maybe),
> without the confusing "text document" stuff.

We don't _need_ them, but it's generally nice to have readable names.

> I think the idea is to report the names of "things" that can be found.
>
> > The consistency would be in the single xref-find-extra binding.
> > The LSP names are clear enough and we can even decamelify them
> > automatically to be nicer to the camelically disinclined like
> > myself.
>
> And remove the "textDocument/find" prefix.

Right.  That's a LSP thing, and Eglot knows LSP, so perfectly
doable.

João