bug#19468: 25.0.50; UI inconveniences with M-.

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 04/29/2015 06:46 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I'd suggest first an exact match, followed by any matches that are
> exact but for letter-case.

I think we've settled on "only exact matches" (to the best of backend's 
ability) for xref-find-definitions.

However, in xref-find-apropos we shouldn't like the exact matches that 
much, and likely care about all matches. In that command's output we 
could use the order in which etags returns its results.

> > Without using the order, in which matches are returned by the backend, we can't even know 
> > what the "best matches" are.
>
> Of course, we can: see above.

The backend can. The UI can't, thus far (unless only the best matches 
are returned to it).

> Moreover, ideally the API to the back-end should allow the UI to
> control the matches applied by the back-end, so that the UI gets only
> the matches it wants in the first place.

Would you like to describe it in more detail? The current main options 
are: "give me matches for this name" and "give me matches for this 
regexp". There's nothing that would correspond to find-tag-tag-order.

> Not sure what is included in "the rest".  For example, I don't think
> it makes sense to disregard tag-implicit-name-match-p, since many tags
> don't have explicit names.

Okay.

> In general, I think it would be good to have a user option that
> controls which predicates are used by the etags back-end.  I think we
> should group the predicates into meaningful groups (e.g., it makes no
> sense to use tag-exact-match-p without tag-implicit-name-match-p).
> The default list of the predicates should IMO include these:
>
>    tag-exact-match-p tag-implicit-name-match-p tag-symbol-match-p

See the newly added defvar `etags-xref-find-definitions-tag-order'.

The last element seems a bit too lax to me, but it's up to you.