Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!ames!ncar!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!mce
From: mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: C topics. (really ctags)
Message-ID: <5592@fluke.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 88 23:45:04 GMT
References: <10389@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <10403@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <26431@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Organization: SRS Recursive Software, Castrovalva, WA
Lines: 20

In article <26431@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes:
>
>Just as LightSpeed C automatically does a good portion of "make", but the
>unix make has more power and takes more work, so LightSpeed C
>automatically does a good portion of the work of ctags, but the unix
>version has more power and takes more work.

But Lightspeed could implement tags even better than UNIX, with very little
overhead.  Add a data structure to the project that identifies each routine
with a line number.  Update when you compile.  More powerful in that you don't
have to run a separate program, and it never goes to the wrong place.

Tags are so incredibly *productive* when I'm programming that I'm amazed at
the half-useful approach in LSC.  Personally, my code almost always references
a routine before it's actual definition, so LSC "tags" goes to the wrong place
9 times out of 10.  So close, yet so far away.


Brian McElhinney
mce@tc.fluke.com