[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UI inconveniences with M-.

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: UI inconveniences with M-.
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 12:24:31 +0300

> From: Helmut Eller <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 11:09:23 +0200
> On Sat, May 02 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Thinking about it: for etags it would make sense to group xrefs by name
> >> of the TAGS file because etags--xref-find-definitions doesn't sort xrefs
> >> "globally"; xrefs are reordered only within a TAGS file.
> >
> > What if the different TAGS files actually describe the same project,
> > like lisp/TAGS and src/TAGS in the Emacs case?
> Always the same: visit-tags-table-buffer returns the TAGS files in a
> certain order; say src/TAGS before lisp/TAGS.  Within a TAGS file
> find-tag-tag-order or etags-xref-find-definitions-tag-order is used for
> sorting but in the final result xrefs from src/TAGS always stay before
> those from lisp/TAGS.

I was asking whether grouping by TAGS file is what the user might want
in this case, since, for example in Emacs, the distinction between
Lisp primitives implemented in C (and thus mentioned in src/TAGS), and
subroutines written in Lisp, does not necessarily exist.  Would the
users mind that, say, forward-line is separated from forward-paragraph?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it is worth

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]