Re: [9fans] ctags on plan 9 with acme-friendly tags

[balaji <balaji.srinivasa@gmail.com>]

I still use 'cscope' and 'mlcscope'. Still the best for me.
Any acme support for this will be great as well.

On Feb 16, 2008 9:34 PM, Anthony Sorace <anothy@gmail.com> wrote:
> i occasionally have to deal with moderate to large bodies of code
> written by others and of questionable structural integrity. most often
> this is C code, but sometimes its other things. there are a few tools
> i've seen which help on the learning curve; ctags is one of the more
> significant one.
>
> i've gotten Exuberant Ctags 5.7 to run on plan 9 ("ported" is a bit
> strong; it was two tweaks after './configure'). i've also added
> options to produce filename:line tags for acme and the plumber. i'm
> cleaning things up a bit for upstream submission, but in the mean time
> you can get what i've done at /n/sources/contrib/anothy/src/ctags;
> there's a README.plan9 that gives instructions for building ('make
> ctags' under ape and then 'cp ctags $home/bin/$objtype', basically)
> and what the changes from the distribution were.
>
> exuberant generates tags for a dozen or so languages, but i've only
> tested it with C; i'll be pushing some perl and php at it this week.
> if anyone would like to try it with anything else it supports, please
> let me know how it goes.
>
> i'm considering doing a limbo parser; exuberant makes it relatively
> easy to add language. of course, i've never seen limbo code convoluted
> enough to make it relevant there. i'm also considering writing a
> program for use with acme's 2-1 chord to look up elements in a tag
> file. if anyone's interested in either of those (either has a use for
> them or would like to do them), let me know.
>
> i'd like to get something that'll generate visual static call graphs
> eventually (feed into graphviz, perhaps), but i'm not likely to spend
> any time on it in the near future. if anyone's look at that, i'd love
> to hear about it.
>
> incidentally, the levels of (mis?)indirection in exuberant's argument
> processing are truly "impressive".
> anthony
>