GNU bug report logs - #51102
Document speedbar etags compatibility mode better

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 51102 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 51102 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode obsolete (etags)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:36:04 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Severity: wishlist

The documentation for `speedbar-use-imenu-flag' says:

    (defcustom speedbar-use-imenu-flag t
      "Non-nil means use imenu for file parsing, nil to use etags.
    XEmacs prior to 20.4 doesn't support imenu, therefore the default is to
    use etags instead.  Etags support is not as robust as imenu support."
    :tag "Use Imenu for tags"
    :group 'speedbar
    :type 'boolean)

Is there any reason to keep the etags support around, or should we
install something like the attached patch?

[0001-Make-speedbar-XEmacs-compatibility-mode-obsolete-eta.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:29:28 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:36:04 -0400
> Cc: "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>
> 
>     (defcustom speedbar-use-imenu-flag t
>       "Non-nil means use imenu for file parsing, nil to use etags.
>     XEmacs prior to 20.4 doesn't support imenu, therefore the default is to
>     use etags instead.  Etags support is not as robust as imenu support."
>     :tag "Use Imenu for tags"
>     :group 'speedbar
>     :type 'boolean)
> 
> Is there any reason to keep the etags support around, or should we
> install something like the attached patch?

I see no reason to remove etags support.  I also don't understand the
"Etags support is not as robust as imenu support" part of the doc
string.

Message #11 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:08:06 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> I also don't understand the "Etags support is not as robust as imenu
> support" part of the doc string.

The author seems to have held the opinion that etags is not relevant on
Emacs:

;;; Tag Management -- etags  (old XEmacs compatibility part)

That comment dates to 1998, when speedbar.el was first imported.

Message #14 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 10:52:21 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:08:06 -0700
> Cc: 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zappo <at> gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > I also don't understand the "Etags support is not as robust as imenu
> > support" part of the doc string.
> 
> The author seems to have held the opinion that etags is not relevant on
> Emacs:
> 
> ;;; Tag Management -- etags  (old XEmacs compatibility part)
> 
> That comment dates to 1998, when speedbar.el was first imported.

Yes, I've seen that.  I'd like the author to elaborate on that: what
exactly is not robust in the etags support by Speedbar?

Message #17 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:31:43 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi all.

That was a very long time ago so I don't remember any specifics from then,
but I can think of two reasons imenu is better.

One, you don't need to save the file and run an external command.

Two, imenu has some nice binning it does to make the tags more navigable.

I don't recall specific issues with etags within speedbar though, so
"robust" is probably not the right word here.

Eric


On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 3:52 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> > Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:08:06 -0700
> > Cc: 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zappo <at> gnu.org
> >
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >
> > > I also don't understand the "Etags support is not as robust as imenu
> > > support" part of the doc string.
> >
> > The author seems to have held the opinion that etags is not relevant on
> > Emacs:
> >
> > ;;; Tag Management -- etags  (old XEmacs compatibility part)
> >
> > That comment dates to 1998, when speedbar.el was first imported.
>
> Yes, I've seen that.  I'd like the author to elaborate on that: what
> exactly is not robust in the etags support by Speedbar?
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #20 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
Cc: zappo <at> gnu.org, stefan <at> marxist.se, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 20:51:02 +0300

> From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:31:43 -0400
> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 
> 	"Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>
> 
> That was a very long time ago so I don't remember any specifics from then, but I can think of two reasons
> imenu is better.
> 
> One, you don't need to save the file and run an external command.
> 
> Two, imenu has some nice binning it does to make the tags more navigable.
> 
> I don't recall specific issues with etags within speedbar though, so "robust" is probably not the right word
> here.  

Thanks.

is it possible that some files will be in a programming language that
imenu doesn't support, but etags does?

Message #23 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:57:58 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Yes, that could be, though my recollection is that the opposite was more
common back in the day.  I don't know what the current balance might be.

I spent a lot of time pulling in a wide array of taggers to solve this type
of problem.  After speedbar I switched to putting them in semantic tags
instead which had more utility than the more focused speedbar feature while
still working fine in speedbar.

Eric

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 1:51 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:31:43 -0400
> > Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
> >       "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>
> >
> > That was a very long time ago so I don't remember any specifics from
> then, but I can think of two reasons
> > imenu is better.
> >
> > One, you don't need to save the file and run an external command.
> >
> > Two, imenu has some nice binning it does to make the tags more navigable.
> >
> > I don't recall specific issues with etags within speedbar though, so
> "robust" is probably not the right word
> > here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> is it possible that some files will be in a programming language that
> imenu doesn't support, but etags does?
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #26 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
Cc: zappo <at> gnu.org, stefan <at> marxist.se, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 21:37:40 +0300

> From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:57:58 -0400
> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 
> 	"Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>
> 
> Yes, that could be, though my recollection is that the opposite was more common back in the day.  I don't
> know what the current balance might be.
> 
> I spent a lot of time pulling in a wide array of taggers to solve this type of problem.  After speedbar I switched
> to putting them in semantic tags instead which had more utility than the more focused speedbar feature
> while still working fine in speedbar.

OK, thanks.  So I think we should leave the etags support as an
optional feature, but remove the reference to XEmacs from the doc
string of the defcustom.

Message #29 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 16:16:45 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Sounds good.  Thanks.

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 2:37 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 13:57:58 -0400
> > Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
> >       "Eric M. Ludlam" <zappo <at> gnu.org>
> >
> > Yes, that could be, though my recollection is that the opposite was more
> common back in the day.  I don't
> > know what the current balance might be.
> >
> > I spent a lot of time pulling in a wide array of taggers to solve this
> type of problem.  After speedbar I switched
> > to putting them in semantic tags instead which had more utility than the
> more focused speedbar feature
> > while still working fine in speedbar.
>
> OK, thanks.  So I think we should leave the etags support as an
> optional feature, but remove the reference to XEmacs from the doc
> string of the defcustom.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #34 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>, zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:18:24 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> OK, thanks.  So I think we should leave the etags support as an
> optional feature, but remove the reference to XEmacs from the doc
> string of the defcustom.

I think we should also document under which circumstances one would want
to use etags instead of imenu.

For example, someone could check which languages have support in etags
but not in imenu and list them.

Message #37 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: ericludlam <at> gmail.com, zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: [PATCH] Make speedbar XEmacs compatibility mode
 obsolete (etags)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 18:57:06 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:18:24 -0700
> Cc: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>, zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > OK, thanks.  So I think we should leave the etags support as an
> > optional feature, but remove the reference to XEmacs from the doc
> > string of the defcustom.
> 
> I think we should also document under which circumstances one would want
> to use etags instead of imenu.
> 
> For example, someone could check which languages have support in etags
> but not in imenu and list them.

Sure, if we know that, or can find out, that'd be useful information.
The languages supported by etags can be seen in "etags --help".

Message #42 received at 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Eric Ludlam <ericludlam <at> gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 zappo <at> gnu.org, 51102 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51102: Document speedbar etags compatibility mode better
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:11:51 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> I think we should also document under which circumstances one would want
> to use etags instead of imenu.
>
> For example, someone could check which languages have support in etags
> but not in imenu and list them.

I don't think we can usefully document this -- because keeping that
documentation up-to-date with both etags and imenu versions would
be too much work.  (And be inaccurate, since people have different etags
versions installed.)

So I think we can just leave this up to the users to decide for
themselves, and I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.