Thread: make_ctags script
I have a question about the make_ctags script in the src/tools directory. What are the -d and -t flags to ctags supposed to do? My version of ctags: wallace$ ctags --version Exuberant Ctags 3.2.4, by Darren Hiebert <darren@hiebert.com> Doesn't recognize them. Oh, and one little fix: The sym-link generator puts 'tags' symlinks in the CVS directories. Patch attached. Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
Attachment
> I have a question about the make_ctags script in the src/tools > directory. What are the -d and -t flags to ctags supposed to do? > My version of ctags: > > wallace$ ctags --version > Exuberant Ctags 3.2.4, by Darren Hiebert <darren@hiebert.com> BSD ctags has: -d create tags for #defines that don't take arguments; #defines that take arguments are tagged automatically. -t create tags for typedefs, structs, unions, and enums. > > Doesn't recognize them. > > Oh, and one little fix: The sym-link generator puts 'tags' symlinks > in the CVS directories. Patch attached. Applied. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:34:48PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have a question about the make_ctags script in the src/tools > > directory. What are the -d and -t flags to ctags supposed to do? > > My version of ctags: > > > > wallace$ ctags --version > > Exuberant Ctags 3.2.4, by Darren Hiebert <darren@hiebert.com> > > BSD ctags has: > > -d create tags for #defines that don't take arguments; #defines that > take arguments are tagged automatically. > > -t create tags for typedefs, structs, unions, and enums. Ah, O.K. then: Exuberant Ctags does all these by default. Just wanted to make sure I wan't missing anything. Slightly off topic: While going through the current source, comparing to Mariposa, I've seen little traces of old code: some ideas seem to have been reinvented and reimplemented a number of times. Going back and digging into Postgres95, and the last postquel based release, postgres-v4r2, to see how they were implemented, it's been fun seeing "debate/design by comment block" from some of the original university developers. In particular, one block with a 12 line NOOOOOO! in backend/commands/version.c had me rolling on the floor. Ah, I see it lives on in _deadcode. In general, the functional comments in the current code are more informative, but not as much fun ;-) Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
> Slightly off topic: While going through the current source, comparing > to Mariposa, I've seen little traces of old code: some ideas seem to > have been reinvented and reimplemented a number of times. Going back > and digging into Postgres95, and the last postquel based release, > postgres-v4r2, to see how they were implemented, it's been fun seeing > "debate/design by comment block" from some of the original university > developers. In particular, one block with a 12 line NOOOOOO! in > backend/commands/version.c had me rolling on the floor. Ah, I see it lives > on in _deadcode. In general, the functional comments in the current code > are more informative, but not as much fun ;-) What I have realized is how superior some of our code is to the old stuff. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026