I followed your suggestion and changed the output format of the tags file to ctags.

Well, it isn't something I'm one hundred percent sure we should do, but rather something I wanted to discuss. Also, I had something different in mind - to use ctags directly to generate the tag files instead of doing it by ourselves in the script (so there wouldn't be the need for messing with the ctags file format on our side). I haven't checked what exactly the script does and whether something like this would be possible though - what do you think?

Also, if we want to use the ctags format, we should merge #3049, otherwise not all the fields are parsed correctly.

To the topic of pros/cons of using the ctags file format, these are the advantages I can think of:

we could use ctags directly to generate tag files as mentioned above
currently the tagmanager format doesn't escape characters 200-215 which could break tag file parsing (it is fixable though)
ctags file format is "standard" while the tagmanager format is "proprietary" to geany (and also binary which isn't very nice)

On the other the cons of the ctags format are:

the tag files are bigger
they are slower to parse
command line ctags may be less flexible in generating tag files than some specific-purpose script
if Geany ctags is out of sync with the ctags command-line that produces tags, we may not be able to read all of the tags

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.