Re: Generalizing find-definition

[Stephen Leake]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> The only single string that reliably would allow to find the correct
>>> definition would be "foo.Foo.baz", but I do not think that anyone
>>> would consider that to be "the identifier at point" here.
>>
>> I would.
>
> I think it should return "baz" here, if we want to go this way at all.
> And then that value could be passed to a "search-definition-function",
> which will perform a full non-precise scan.

When would that be useful?

> It apparent that we won't be able to do precise searches for identifiers
> in most cases, 

It requires support from the compiler/backend, but that should always be
available (presumably you have the compiler if you are editing the
code). So why do you think we can't do precise searches in most cases?

Hmm, maybe you won't have the compiler installed if you are just reading
someone else's code. I'm not sure that's an important use case.

-- 
-- Stephe