[Geany] pipe-separated tags files (was Re: css.tags)

Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger at xxxxx
Wed Sep 17 12:37:52 UTC 2008


On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:54:30 +0100, Nick Treleaven
<nick.treleaven at btinternet.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:08:52 +0200
> Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> 
> > > > > a) we add the CSS filetype to the list of filetypes which use
> > > > > this format (pipe-separated).
> ...
> > > > > I'd prefer a) as your list is 'generated' manually and not by
> > > > > a script and so the pipe-separated format is easier to
> > > > > maintain but it's not possible without changing the source
> > > > > code.
> > > 
> > > I'm still not 100% what is the best way. But we shouldn't look
> > > back to much to Geany 0.14. Even though 0.15 will might take some
> > > more time, the solution should be something that is working for
> > > all tag file in the same way. Providing data pipe seperated and in
> > > tagmanager style mixed up will be ugly to maintain I guess. 
> > 
> > Hmm, 'ugly to maintain'? Maintaining a binary file is less ugly
> > than a pipe-separated tag file?
> > The problem with the tagmanager format is that it mostly can't be
> > edited. And so, for the Pascal or LaTeX  tag files you need to get
> > them parsed but probably they can't be parsed with the current code.
> > This is why there is another, easier format.
> > 
> > I don't think having all tags file in the tagmanager format would
> > make them easier to maintain. Of course, this is true for real
> > generated file like the globals tags file for C/C++. But probably
> > not for other formats.
> > Same for the PHP tags file which is parsed from a text file from the
> > PHP project. To get it generated by the tagmanager code you would
> > need to generate a PHP file with all these information so that it
> > could be parsed by the PHP parser and then written to a tags file.
> > But IIRC then function signatures (return values, argument lists)
> > are lost and we just loose information compared to the current way.
> 
> There are good reasons to have both, CTags is unlikely to be able to
> support full tag parsing for all languages Geany wants to support.
> 
> I think a nice solution would be to support both formats for each
> filetype. Maybe with different extensions for pipe-separated tags
> files. That way everyone is happy, and users could even write
> pipe-separated tags files as a kind of custom calltips/autocompletion
> feature, whilst still loading TM-generated tags files.

Yeah, that's a great idea and solves the problem, at least for future
versions.


Regards,
Enrico

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080917/2decb2c0/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Users mailing list