On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:41:59 +0100, Nick wrote: >On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:53:23 +0200 >Thomas Martitz <thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de> wrote: > >> Am 20.04.2010 15:56, schrieb Nick Treleaven: >> > I think we should try to stay fairly compatible with CTags as other >> > projects use it also and may make improvements to their copies. >> > >> > But IMO it's OK to change the I/O functions. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Nick >> > >> >> >> Aren't Geany tags (the ones that are saved on the disc) already >> incompatible with ctags since a long time? At least the manual says >> so. Or is it internally still compatible with ctags? > >That's the global tag file format, not the source files. > >> >> I think trying to keep things sync'd with an inactive project (which >> it seems to be as mentioned in a previous mail) is the right way if >> you want to keep actual progress out. > >I didn't say we shouldn't add features. I've added many myself. What I >meant was not to start using GLib functions or making >organisational changes unless there's a significant benefit. > >As I already said, CTags is used in many projects which *are* actively >developed. We may be able to merge changes from these.
Sounds ok. Maybe we can get some kind of in-memory parsing by just modifying/extending the IO layer and try to keep changes to the actual parsers minimal. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgprmOnNwaapv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel