[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?
|
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
|
Subject: |
Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:05:43 +0200 |
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:47:09 +0100
> Cc: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
> From: Ulrich Mueller <address@hidden>
>
> > Maybe we should even make that the default? Does anyone still use
> > the ctags that is distributed with Emacs?
>
> Wouldn't that argument apply to etags as well?
No, because the Exuberant program is named "ctags", not "etags".
- Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Kaushal Modi, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Ulrich Mueller, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Kaushal Modi, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Ulrich Mueller, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/10