Re: [code] Updated proposal for better ctags support

From: Mitchell <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:28:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Hi Carlos,

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, Carlos Pita wrote:

> Hi, Mitchell, I would like to know your opinion about what follows. Ctags
> has some support for matching variable definitions (even local ones, for
> some languages). Although not perfect this could be useful to heuristically
> rank completions according to scopes inferred from definitions near the
> cursor (with some help from the language module in order to map each
> definition to a scope, say a=1 to Integer). But maybe the existent lpeg
> grammars are better suited for finding the near cursor definitions than
> ctags. I've done no research on this possibility yet so I would like to
> hear your advice first, in case it were an obvious dead end.

If I understand your question correctly, ctags would do a much better job
identifying variables. Many lexers do not understand variables or variable
assignments/definitions (hence why Adeptsense had to parse text).


You are subscribed to
To change subscription settings, send an e-mail to
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
Received on Tue 08 Jul 2014 - 09:28:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 09 Jul 2014 - 06:35:38 EDT