Re: IDE versus emacs

[Vagn Johansen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> I remember it could not always find the definition though. I think
>> to get on par with what people called "IDE" the tag system has to
>> understand the language semantics. And this, as Jai said, is indeed
>> what Semantic (a part of CEDET) claims to do.  I was wondering
>> whether it is the state of the art or there is a simpler and better
>> successor.
>
> At least in C and C++, tags never miss a definition for me.  My only
> problem with tags is that they sometimes show me more definitions
> other than what I had in mind that match the symbol I type, either
> because of case insensitivity or because of partial matches.

Is the TAGS format extensible so a new fields could be added?

It would useful if the identifiers were tagged (pun intended) with the
the "type": class, method, static function, constant etc.

For example find-tag could then support a customized
find-first/find-next order (eg. class first).

You could also use it to make the function guess-class-name-at-point. I
have previously needed this for my tempo expansions for C++ member
functions.

-- 
Vagn Johansen