Re: Missing entries for Perl in etags-regen-file-extensions -- okay for emacs-30?

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 21/09/2024 18:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> If you have reservations about some of the extensions, let's exclude
> them for now.  I believe there are just a few of them, while the vast
> majority should present no problem, right?  I'm okay with leaving out
> HTML and Texinfo.  Are there more of those?  TeX, perhaps?

TeX yes. I'm also not sure about PostScript - but really because I still 
don't know how a function definition in that language looks, even after 
skimming through a manual.

Speaking of other extensions, isn't ".a" usually a compiled library 
rather than ASM source code? Also curious about ".t" for Scheme and 
".ml" for Lisp.

Not much else jumps out, but if somebody else has suggestions what to 
remove, we should probably do so (for the release branch). Basically, 
whatever extensions that might be not very common for a given language 
and could create false hits.