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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 04:09:22 +0300
> Cc: spwhitton@spwhitton.name, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
> 
> 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.

Fine, let's exclude all of these.  It still leaves quite a lot.

> 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.

Agreed.