Re: some additional thoughts on NEARNESS SORT option

Hi Gautam,
> I had one more thought on this.
>
> 1) the highest priority is to find definitions in current directory
> or below this directory. But it seems we can do a little better. How
about:
>
> a) highest prio is if the definition appears in the same file as where
M-. is being done.
> b) 2nd highest would be other entries from other files at this directory
level.
> c) 3rd highest would be any entries in subdirectory/subdirectories(?)
> d) start to move up on directory at a time as per rules prev. given for
-N option.
>
> 2) And here is yet another "wild" idea. suppose you are looking for
definition
> of method "foo()". THe "which-func-mode" can tell you that you are sitting
> in Class A::method bar(). In this case it seems that first choice would be
> if there is a Class A::method foo() since that is one most likely is
being sought.
> However, this gets into having to deal w/ which-func-mode to learn more
about
> where the point is.  I think 1a) above may get us this indirectly.

It's a interesting idea.
However, we need to release a simple nearness sort version at first. The
current
nearness sort is complicated enough. I would like to advance slowly with
users.
Happily, your new idea seems to be upper compatible with the current spec.
What do you think?

Regards,
Shigio
-- 
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <[email protected]>
PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663  C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3

_______________________________________________
Bug-global mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global