...I guess we'll need to write plugins to accompany module-introduced syntax for Moose, Class::Accessor, Class::MethodMaker, etc.

Hei J!

I just had a similiar idea to switch the responsibility from the IDE to the modules author, so I paste my thoughts in reply to yours. 8 )

From a bigger perspective ... IMHO the conceptionally best approach for IDEs would be to define an interface for authors to communicate which methods and subs their modules generate. So authors have the responsibility to export their tags.

For instance an additional module for Class::Accessor, let's call it Class::Accessor::Tags may have the necessary parsing logic for the to-be-tagged module.

Or maybe for more dynamic generations "::Tags" may just override subs like mk_accessors() in a way that executing the code doesn't really run but just produce the tag-infos.

Saying this it's unlikely that module-authors will do this extra work just to support Padre and the OP would maybe not want to support all open IDE's like Emacs and Vi.

So a general IDE-independent standard would be needed!

UPDATES:

Talking about "tags" it may seem that I'm favourizing the format of ctags or etags as appropriate interface (just look at the manpage *), but I'm not sure... not knowing a better alternative doesn't mean that there is no better choice. Anyway IMHO most IDEs support tag-files, making them to a de facto standard.

* some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctags http://ctags.sourceforge.net/