On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:41:59 +0100, Nick wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:53:23 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.martitz@student.HTW-Berlin.de wrote:
Am 20.04.2010 15:56, schrieb Nick Treleaven:
I think we should try to stay fairly compatible with CTags as other projects use it also and may make improvements to their copies.
But IMO it's OK to change the I/O functions.
Regards, Nick
Aren't Geany tags (the ones that are saved on the disc) already incompatible with ctags since a long time? At least the manual says so. Or is it internally still compatible with ctags?
That's the global tag file format, not the source files.
I think trying to keep things sync'd with an inactive project (which it seems to be as mentioned in a previous mail) is the right way if you want to keep actual progress out.
I didn't say we shouldn't add features. I've added many myself. What I meant was not to start using GLib functions or making organisational changes unless there's a significant benefit.
As I already said, CTags is used in many projects which *are* actively developed. We may be able to merge changes from these.
Sounds ok. Maybe we can get some kind of in-memory parsing by just modifying/extending the IO layer and try to keep changes to the actual parsers minimal.
Regards, Enrico