[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IDE versus emacs
From: |
Tima |
Subject: |
Re: IDE versus emacs |
Date: |
Fri, 5 Oct 2012 22:43:56 -0700 |
On Oct 5, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Tima wrote:
>> The programming feature I miss most in emacs is the code browsing:
>> jump to the definition of a method, function, class, variable, and
>> jump back to the original position. I tried to configure CEDET to do
>> this, but have not succeeded so far.
>
> I have always used TAGs tables created using the etags comand for
> this. Then M-. , C-x 5 . and so forth.
Yes, I used TAGs in the past. Well documented in the emacs manual and works as
expected.
I remember it could not always find the definition though. I think to get on
par with what people called "IDE" the tag system has to understand the language
semantics. And this, as Jai said, is indeed what Semantic (a part of CEDET)
claims to do. I was wondering whether it is the state of the art or there is a
simpler and better successor.
--Tima
- Re: IDE versus emacs, (continued)
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Óscar Fuentes, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Philipp Haselwarter, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tima, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/05
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Bob Proulx, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs,
Tima <=
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/10/06
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Steinar Bang, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Sohail Somani, 2012/10/19
- RE: IDE versus emacs, Drew Adams, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Sohail Somani, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Brandon Betances, 2012/10/19
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Tom, 2012/10/20
- Re: IDE versus emacs, Jai Dayal, 2012/10/20