Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>   >   >Not all systems use Exuberant Ctags or Universal Ctags.  On the BSDs,
>   >   >ctags is compatible with the Emacs ctags output (which is why it
>   >   >exists, AFAIR).  Exuberant Ctags etc do not work with either vi(1) or
>   >   >mg(1) on those systems, and their output is at odds with what is
>   >   >standardized by POSIX.
>   >
>   >   In what sense it is not standarized by POSIX?
>   >
>   >The output from Exuberant ctags is not what POSIX asks for.  Programs
>   >that expect the POSIX format will thus not work, or do funny stuff.
>
>   Again, I haven't observed that, that's exactly my point, if there is an
>   issue in universal ctags output format it should be reported, but I
>   haven't observed any mismatch.
>
> I have observed the case, the POSIX format is stricter, the output
> from ctags as specified by POSIX is (there are slight variants, but it
> is always three fields):
>
>  "%s\t%s\t/%s/\n", <identifier>, <filename>, <pattern>
>
> for example, GNU Emacs ctags outputs:
>
>  syms_of_cmds   cmds.c  /^syms_of_cmds (void)$/
>
> where Exuberant (and Universal) ctags outputs:
>
>  syms_of_cmds   cmds.c  /^syms_of_cmds (void)$/;"  f       typeref:typename:void
Did you tried the format=1 option?

> It is fair to fail on not being able to accept the above, or treating
> the third field as one.  And one might also question how to treat a
> pattern with a trailing double quote.
>
>   >   >So really, you're suggesting to remove a standardized utility and
>   >   >replace it with non-standard ones that produce incompatible output
>   >   >from what is generally accepted.
>   >
>   >   I am suggesting to avoid the forced installation of a utility that we
>   >   are not maintaining very well for another very well maintained, with
>   >   more languages, support and formats.
>   >
>   >That is changing the point I was making, that Emacs ctags produces the
>   >standard ctags output where Exuberant ctags does not.
>
>   Universal ctags DOES generate standard ctags format (and some others
>   like etags format); they actually explicitly refer to vi in the man
>   page.
>
> No, it does not.  See above; from Universal ctags from 2019.
See above

>   Exuberant is not maintained since 2011.
>
> People still use software that is older, just that something is "not
> maintained" (which can mean many things) doesn't mean that it stops
> being useless.
Agree, but any error in Exuberant Ctags has been fixed in Universal
version and can be reported there to be fixed immediately.

>   If there is the free and active universal ctags with a big and active
>   team doing that work and supporting many format and languages, then it
>   is pointless to duplicate effort and invest time on that.  Don't
>   reinvent the wheel.
>
> That is quite a dismissive comment, Emacs ctags existed long before
> any of those existed (and at that point, we did not have any ctags on
> GNU) so one might question who is reinventing the wheel here...
Agree, but now their wheel is better. If they had the motivation, man
power and patience to implement something more complete and compatible,
in a shorter time and share it with the community for 10 years, the fact
that many users prefer it and the backward compatibility they have with
the original version... plus a lack of man power we have...  it is
pointless to duplicate the effort. Emacs developers should join effort
in other direction (treesitter, lsp, project features and so on; that's
my personal opinion of course.)