[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Delayed warnings
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Delayed warnings |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:48:54 +0100 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 14:17, martin rudalics <address@hidden> wrote:
> Fully agreed. But the same arguments hold for redisplay errors which
> currently pass through add_to_log where they are treated like messages.
Of course there's a hierarchy of "errors": those that the user cannot
do anything about (and should go to *Messages*), those that the user
*must* attend to (and should either interrupt the user or bring Emacs
to a halt), and warnings that inform the user about what he should
do/know, but can be ignored.
I'm mostly concerned about the third kind, specially when they happen
in low-level code, because they are difficult to make (from C) both
visible and, user wishing, easily ignorable. Sending them to
*Messages* is not enough, unless we're going to (pop-to-buffer
"*Messages*") and that's basically duplicating `display-warning' :-)
> What I wanted is a mechanism that handles (and optionally ignores) all
> sorts of errors/warnings which currently can't be issued prominently
> because Emacs is in an inconsistent state.
Which kind of design have you in mind?
Juanma
- Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/20
- Re: Delayed warnings, martin rudalics, 2011/03/21
- Re: Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/21
- Re: Delayed warnings,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Delayed warnings, martin rudalics, 2011/03/21
- Re: Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/21
- Re: Delayed warnings, Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/21
- Re: Delayed warnings, martin rudalics, 2011/03/22
- Re: Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/22
- Re: Delayed warnings, Jeff Sparkes, 2011/03/23
- Re: Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/25
- Re: Delayed warnings, martin rudalics, 2011/03/22
- Re: Delayed warnings, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/22