Re: Generalizing find-definition

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 12/16/2014 12:17 AM, Helmut Eller wrote:

> Apparently I missed that.  The last patch I looked at had a number of
> (eq id t) tests.

Ok, sorry. I misunderstood. So, only strings? That's not bad, the string 
can be that "imprecise" value, and a property will signal that the 
backend will have to find out what the identifier is, maybe using the 
value of that property (likely marker), or the current value of point.

> There's still the problem of how to put text properties on the result of
> completing-read.

Do we really need to? I think the identifier-completion-table can manage 
to contain only unambiguous entries.

Even if we could carry text properties through `completing-read', the 
user won't see them when choosing, so all strings in the table will have 
to be different anyway.