Am 29.08.2016 um 17:52 schrieb Jiří Techet: > I don't see why TM couldn't be improved to support other, AST-based > parsers. Sure TM is lacking now but we cna fix that. I don't think > it's too much work. > > Good, modify tag array merging > > https://github.com/geany/geany/blob/master/src/tagmanager/tm_tag.c#L375 > > to work on trees that is similarly fast and let's talk then ;-).
The plugin probably would provide a list, which it generated internally from whatever representation. > > But coming back to this PR. I don't think the proposed query API is > affected by the above ideas. It'll always be used to return a list > of tags. If the TMTag structure changes for new features or are > subtrees instead of plain tags is a different story. > > As I think TM should be used for ctags-like tags, lists should be fine. > (They would be insufficient if you needed some AST information, e.g. for > code completion.) Then TM should be improved to hold sufficient information. auto completion leaves a lot to be desired even for ctags based tags so there's definitely work to do on the TM side. I wonder what makes you guys think this list vs tree(AST) makes things fundamentally unworkable? It's a complete non-issue to me. It's just a representation that can be converted as needed. Anyway, as @elextr also said, I think that even if TM would use a completely different internal representation (such as a tree), the query results would most likely still be a list. Similarly to DB queries, which also return flat tables. So the list vs tree discussion becomes orthogonal to this PR. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/1187#issuecomment-243358385
