Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 10/03/2023 02:57, Ergus wrote:
> Ho Dmitry and Joao
>
> On March 6, 2023 3:09:40 PM GMT+01:00, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > On 06/03/2023 01:40, John Yates wrote:
> > > For languages that do not distinguish declaration from definition,
> > > another alternative is to have both key bindings reference the same
> > > find-definition functionality.
>
> Yes please, just fall back to find-definition (or find-references) + a warning 
> when find-declaration or the the others are not supported? It is simpler and 
> practical.

Could you explain this usage scenario? Why not just report "unsupported" 
and let the user try again with the simpler key binding (M-.)?

It's not like people will prefer to reach for C-M-?, or will hit it by 
accident.

> Alternatively there could be a default fallback command similar to 
> find-references but reordering to list definitions first (just an example)

That sounds harder because at the moment our "reference" items don't 
have indication of which type they are. So if we wanted this to work 
well, we'd have to mandate that additional information, and we don't 
have any good implementation options for either etags or elisp backend 
that would do that.

> > I think I would generally prefer for the "find declarations" binding to end 
> > with an error when unsupported rather than repeat an existing command which is already 
> > accessible through an easier key binding.
> >
> > Otherwise some users might waste time wondering over the difference, testing, 
> > and comparing -- I myself would, probably.
>
> Before binding to a key maybe let's start again with the  simpler: to add them 
> in the right click context menu... And we can find a binding later.

We can do both.