|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#22241: 25.0.50; etags Ruby parser problems |
Date: | Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:43:15 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/44.0 |
On 01/31/2016 06:37 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Right, that part is not implemented. Perhaps later. Is it terribly important?
Exuberant Ctags doesn't do it. I suppose it's rather a missing feature than a bug.
It's fine if it's not in 25.1, but let's keep the bug open until it's implemented.
Third, this is tangential, but I don't think anybody uses the .ruby extension for Ruby files (you can see it's not in auto-mode-alist). But maybe someone somewhere will use it for something else, and etags will erroneously parse that file as Ruby?I found that on the Internet, I can try to find that again.
Please do.
On the other hand, you might want to add *.ru, *.rbw, Rakefile and Thorfile to the list of Ruby file names.That's easy to add. Should we?
I believe so. *.ru is a bit questionable (it's not an official Ruby extension, and it might be used by some other file formats), but it's used by a very popular Ruby library for web application init scripts, and those can contain different definitions (in practice, mostly constants, although it can have functions defined, if the application is tiny, or somehow exotic). *.rbw is the Windows extension for Ruby programs that don't need the cmd window. Rakefile and Thorfile can also contain definitions (usually constants, but not necessarily just them, in the former, and classes and methods in the latter).
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |