> I suggest doing it in reverse order, wait until ctags is made into a library > then do one change when it has a stable API. Bringing in all the unused crap > and then removing it and interfacing Geany to whatever the ctags API is gonna > be is wasted work IMO.
One of the important parts of this pull request was to learn what we actually need in the API which wasn't clear before and what the differences between Geany and uctags are (which wasn't clear at all before). I wouldn't know how to create the API without this. There's nobody working on libraryfication of uctags upstream. Waiting for it to happen would be pointless - it won't happen by itself. The only project that uses uctags as a "library" is us and the and it's us (probably me) who will have to do it. Doing it properly will take some time - I'd most probably start doing it "improperly", i.e. bringing the API to uctags the way it's done in this pull request and then starting to refactor it to turn it into a proper library. This will take time however and having this pull request in will make it possible to start working on syncing parsers. In addition the state after this pull request is better than before - it's MUCH easier to bring changes to Geany from uctags than before. So even if it turns out I don't have time to work on uctags or it turns out the uctags project doesn't want the library change (or whatever else), it's better to have this in. -- 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/1263#issuecomment-255696114
