Re: xref-find-matches and stuff

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:24:10 +0300
> 
> On 05/11/2015 05:56 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Making etags recognize them is almost trivial.
> 
> cl-defstruct accessors and predicates? I wouldn't say it's trivial, but 
> it should be straightforward to implement. In Elisp, at least. In C, 
> it's bound to be an order of magnitude longer.

I don't see the difficulty.  Can you explain why you think it's more
than a few lines of code needed to produce the tags for accessors and
predicates "out of thin air", given just the name of the defstruct,
immediately after we produce the tag for the defstruct itself?

>  > The question is, do we want such ad-hocery in etags.c?
> 
> I guess not, but that's the point: within the restrictions imposed by 
> etags's design and common sense, you're not going to write an indexer 
> that takes into account the many different ways Elisp can define 
> functions implicitly.

If we decide that's what we want, then why won't we write that?  The
number of constructs that need to be handled might be large, but it's
finite.