Re: Bad moves with xref-find-definitions

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 04/26/2015 11:56 PM, Vitalie Spinu wrote:

> Because you need an interactive repl running to have dynamic completion
> for one, and for multiple language projects you don't have access to
> C/Fortran etc definitions from the interactive session anyways. So at
> least the etags integration should be done properly in the core.

We're talking about using some new tags table, to jump to a file in a 
different project, right? How come it's important to have a running 
repl, then?

> Generally you don't want to clutter completion or location tables with
> java symbols from all the projects that you import. %99.99 of those are
> useless. In most cases you need clojure and java symbols in current
> project. Next level is all core and imported clojure symbols. Then all
> java classes/methods.

Note that these levels are not split along the lines of Clojure/Java.

And while it seems like it could a sensible approach, I don't exactly 
see a solution in terms of new xref features.

> There is an open issue in CIDER on interactive doc completion where this
> was discussed [1]. Bozhidar can comment on this more, but the general
> idea is that you want to offer completion candidates in some sort of
> stages in order to avoid impairing the usability. I think the same
> concern is valid for references (for the prompt case and apropos at
> least).

But the currently suggested approach proposes to use one completion 
table for all stages.