[Github-comments] [geany] Rewrite scope completion 3 (#862)

[elextr]

On 12 January 2016 at 09:59, Jiří Techet <notifications at github.com> wrote:

> That is likely to make autocompletion worse than it is now.
>
> How? This definitely didn't work before. What about trying it first?
>

​Things in namespaces autocomplete now (I turned it on to check :).​



> Everything in C++ is namespaced (or should be) so what you are saying is
> that no name in a namespace will provide an autocompletion.
>
> It doesn't work for namespaces themselves only but works for the stuff
> inside - have a look at Colomban's example - you get scope completion for
> the contents of the classes inside.
>

​Yes, Colombans example makes it clear that its has gone backward since
namespaces work now.​



> C++ autocompletion is such rubbish that I now turn it off. Python autoc is
> such an annoyance I turn it off. Basically I turn just it off completely.
> And decisions to arbitrarily not support large parts of a languages
> features doesn't help.
>
> I can only say - patches are welcome. I'm not saying it's perfect but it's
> much better than before (which was really broken in some cases) and can
> always be improved. I don't want to put more and more patches on top of
> this (as you suggested yourself yesterday) because then it never gets
> merged.
>
​Sure, but saying "I have created a regression by ignoring namespaces but I
will fix that in another PR very soon" is very different to ​saying you
have created a regression and won't fix it.



> Thank you for putting the effort into it, but instead of using your effort
> trying to solve a broken system it would be a better spent to provide the
> hooks so plugins can control these things, with libclang being to obvious
> contender for C++.
>
> This is something I'm not interested in - if you want to make clang work
> then clang will have to have full knowledge of the build process which
> means Geany will have to start managing your project. And this is not
> something I want Geany to evlove into - I want Geany to be build system
> independent and cross-language. If I wanted something like this, I'd just
> grab some full-blown IDE - I feel zero motivation to recreate something
> like that. And making such a thing work is A LOT more effort than the few
> hundreds lines in this patch.
>
​Indeed, but the more effort that goes into the bullt-in system the harder
it becomes to allow plugins to replace it.​  Matthew had a look at
libclang, but found that it was not possible to inject the information
libclang produces into Geany IIRC.  If a plugin wants to be a "full blown"
IDE it should be allowed to be (but I won't be doing it any time soon).


> I definitely wouldn't call the ctags parsing stuff "broken" - actually
> think the ctags parsing works wonderfully well (and is super-fast). It just
> depends what expectations you have - it won't be able to do some things
> like things that require function body parsing.
>

​If it gives lots of wrong options and misses lots of right options its
broken.  ​ It may be broken due to limitations imposed for good reason (as
you say above) but its still broken.



> To be honest, I also don't care much about the autocompletion but the goto
> tag definition/declaration feature is fantastic (and getting #406
> <https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/406> merged would make a much bigger
> practical difference for me than these patches).
>

​That indeed looks like a good idea, pinged it for you :)​



> The main benefit of these patches is mainly the TM cleanup - the patches
> merged a year ago concentrated mostly on tag sorting and management, these
> patches clean up searching. Some of the previous code was *really* bad
> and hard to read and I think this will make TM much easier to maintain. The
> scope completion improvements are more or less a side-effect of this. There
> is some more TM-related work I'd like to do (Colomban, don't worry, should
> be more or less formal cleanups and not such headache-makers like this :-)
> but I think the code is pretty understandable now.
>

​That is a good reason to make the changes, but it didn't really come
across that way.  But again, code cleanup at the cost of regressions isn't
good.



> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/862#issuecomment-170737058>.
>


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/862#issuecomment-170742045
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.geany.org/pipermail/github-comments/attachments/20160111/91b1585d/attachment.html>