> @b4n What about an imperfect (but simple) patch now and a bigger patch > (possibly rewriting quite a big portion of the function) after the release? > I've updated the patch so that I just removed the part of the code removing > tags from the current line from the popup result (this guarantees that if > there were >0 tags before the filtering, there will be >0 tags after it which > is necessary for the declaration goto). The thing the patch does now is it > just removes one of the two identical names one of which is typedef. > > How do you feel about this? […]
Seems reasonable. I'll try it a bit but it indeed looks at least good enough for now, as it should work fine for all common cases, and only ask in weird or impossible cases. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/923#issuecomment-192928227
