<blockquote>
<p>I don't see why TM couldn't be improved to support other, AST-based parsers. Sure TM is lacking now but we cna fix that. I don't think it's too much work.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Good, modify tag array merging</p>

<p><a href="https://github.com/geany/geany/blob/master/src/tagmanager/tm_tag.c#L375">https://github.com/geany/geany/blob/master/src/tagmanager/tm_tag.c#L375</a></p>

<p>to work on trees that is similarly fast and let's talk then ;-).</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But coming back to this PR. I don't think the proposed query API is affected by the above ideas. It'll always be used to return a list of tags. If the TMTag structure changes for new features or are subtrees instead of plain tags is a different story.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I think TM should be used for ctags-like tags, lists should be fine. (They would be insufficient if you needed some AST information, e.g. for code completion.)</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/1187#issuecomment-243165940">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDrJ42phfpQQcn-TK4laA4MAPAY59wcks5qkwBMgaJpZM4JqVBL">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABDrJ1D2ZhWPD_bN93d_tkxaOgOK2IIfks5qkwBMgaJpZM4JqVBL.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
  <link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/1187#issuecomment-243165940"></link>
  <meta itemprop="name" content="View Pull Request"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Pull Request on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/geany/geany","title":"geany/geany","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/geany/geany"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@techee in #1187: \u003eI don't see why TM couldn't be improved to support other, AST-based parsers. Sure TM is lacking now but we cna fix that. I don't think it's too much work.\r\n\r\nGood, modify tag array merging\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/geany/geany/blob/master/src/tagmanager/tm_tag.c#L375\r\n\r\nto work on trees that is similarly fast and let's talk then ;-).\r\n\r\n\u003e But coming back to this PR. I don't think the proposed query API is affected by the above ideas. It'll always be used to return a list of tags. If the TMTag structure changes for new features or are subtrees instead of plain tags is a different story.\r\n\r\nAs I think TM should be used for ctags-like tags, lists should be fine. (They would be insufficient if you needed some AST information, e.g. for code completion.)"}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/1187#issuecomment-243165940"}}}</script>