> This makes it impossible to process multiple files by one parser.
...
> Another thing to be consider is that parsers open GTAGS for reading
> while GTAGS is opened for modifying.
(derived from the next mail)
You are right. It's a good point.
OK. Let's change the verbose message according to your implementation
completely.
> I propose changing like this.
>
> incremental(dbpath, cwd)
> {
> if (!vflag
> && ((comline = dbname(GTAGS)) != NULL
> && locatestring(comline, "%S", MATCH_FIRST) != NULL)
> || ((comline = dbname(GRTAGS)) != NULL
> && locatestring(comline, "%S", MATCH_FIRST) != NULL)
> || ((comline = dbname(GSYMS)) != NULL
> && locatestring(comline, "%S", MATCH_FIRST) != NULL))
> return incremental_optimized_for_speed(dbpath, cwd);
I don't agree. The -v(verbose) option should not change the behaveior.
The explanation to the users:
o The algorithm of incremental updating was changed to improve the
performance. Along with it, the verbose message was greatly changed.
Is it right?
Thank you for your great hack.
--
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Tama Communications Corporation
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663 C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3
_______________________________________________
Bug-global mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global
