Re: Completions in Semantic

[Eric M. Ludlam]

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 15:28 +0200, Lluis wrote:
> > Just as an FYI about the semantic tag info (which you seem to be
> > alluding to), is that it provides all that info, though not
> necessarily
> > from the completion engine via a UI.
> 
> Well, it's been a long time since I played with the completion
> interfaces
> provided in CEDET, but I already knew all that information was
> available
> somewhere in semantic :)
> 
> I just didn't know documentation was also available as one of the
> tag's
> attributes, which reminds me that:
>     1) One-liner doxygen description shows up with the `*/' at the end
>     2) Descriptions of the form: /*< description */ 
>        are not assigned to the correct variable
>     3) One more nice feature would be to have the "show long
> documentation"
>        parse doxygen-specific commands such that parameters
> descriptions are
>        shown more clearly

The doc in Semantic tags is only for languages that have explicit doc,
like Emacs Lisp.  For other languages, when doc is requested of a tag,
there is some code that goes and looks for comments.  It doesn't follow
doxygen style rules though.

On the flip side, the srecode tool has a documentation feature that can
do doxygen style comment reading/modification, going so far as to take
boring comments and convert them to be doxygen compatible.  You can use
it with srecode-document-insert-comment, or C-c / C if srecode minor
mode is on.  I think I only created templates for C/C++, and Java.

I suppose it would make sense to merge the comment reader pieces back
together.

For folks hacking Emacs C code, if there is a comment style/behavior
that is repetitive/special in some way, it should be possible to create
srecode template specialization for it.  I've been interested in having
EDE provided project template specializations, but haven't had a use
case since I only use the GNUish or doxygen ones which are language
specific.

> I also tried with `completion-ui', `auto-complete' and `company-mode',
> which are
> the ones I've found that provide completion UIs through overlays (hope
> I'm using
> the correct term), which is the form i feel more comfortable with.
> 
> But as far as I've been able to see, none of these three provide the
> features
> I've mentioned, although they do provide semantic-based backends for
> completion.

Those tools are pretty generic completion engines, and thus don't have
any special features that use the extra tagging info.  That I know of
anyway.

Eric