[Geany] Bunch of feature requests...

[Jiří Techet]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:35, Matthew Brush <mbrush at codebrainz.ca> wrote:
> On 05/10/11 15:11, Jiří Techet wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, tagmanager was based on some pre- ctags 5.1 version which is more
>> 9 years old now. I have a branch here
>>
>> http://gitorious.org/~techy/geany/gproject-geany/commits/tm_cleanup2
>>
>> which brings the ctags part of tagmanager as close to current SVN
>> version of ctags as possible. I updated only the core parts of ctags,
>> not the parsers, because I know there have been many tunings made by
>> Geany to some of them. Recently I've rebased on top of the changes
>> made by Colomban (MIO introduction). I've also #if 0'd a lot of code
>> not needed by Geany so it's much clearer what's used by Geany and what
>> not (e.g. some of the Colomban's changes were completely useless
>> because they affected code that's never called in Geany). I've been
>
> Not sure if you've seen this[1], to quote the source where I found that
> "...the patched and up-to-date version of ctags. It ships with Anjuta's
> package.".  It would be cool to merge their fork into the mix as well.
>
> [1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/anjuta/tree/plugins/symbol-db/anjuta-tags

Yes, I've seen it. But the plugin works differently to Geany. Their
ctags version in Anjuta is identical to the mainline version - they
first run the ctags on the sources and then parse the result and store
it to their internal database. Geany's ctags version adds the tags
into the tag list immediately when they are found so the ctags sources
need to be modified slightly for that (and as a result it doesn't need
the code that writes the tags into the output file).

So in order to use Anjuta's version, you'd have to use the whole
symbol-db plugins which in my opinion isn't a good choice for Geany
because it looks rather heavy-weight (persistent storage of the tags
into sqlite database and quite a lot of extra sources).

Cheers,

Jiri