Re: current compile.el issues

[Dave Love]

address@hidden (Daniel Pfeiffer) writes:

> The file doesn't contain data but documents compile.  So it uses the
> "right" variable.

The documentation is quite clear that it doesn't.

> The problem is a general one about customizing font-lock-keywords.  Just
> defcustoming a list that requires lisp knowledge won't help anybody.

It doesn't require Lisp knowledge to turn off the sort of patterns I
don't want, just a toggle.

> Those who know what to do with it, can easily setq in .emacs.

If it's something users like me want to change, it should be
customized by definition.

> For the others someone will have to think up a clever way of making this
> simple and generalize it for all kinds of font-lock-keywords.

That clearly isn't necessary.

> Maybe the way I did this for compiler messages could be an
> inspiration.

I would do without indirecting through symbols and allow adding
patterns.  Custom's `set', `const', `repeat', `:tag' and `:inline' are
enough.  You can even include examples in the tag.

> Well I don't know what your point is.

My point is that I'm interested in error messages from input to REPLs
and their typical behaviour.

> Your answer about Stef and you replied to my comment about multiple
> messages on a line.  You had crippled this comment of mine in your
> reply (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:13:44 +0100) so I restated it, to know
> what we were on about.  Apparently you meant to answer something
> else.

I meant to address what the sort of systems you run that way typically
do and how people want to work with them using
compilation-shell-minor-mode or something.
 
> If a compiler chooses to use some special notation (e.g. STDIN:8:9:) exactly
> like it does filenames, this gets very specialized.  This might be a strange
> filename...  The whole thing is only heuristic,

That's my point, but it doesn't stop you describing the heuristics.

> No, you must have misunderstood me.  I only say that if a compiler labels a
> message as informational, it's likely not something you need to visit, at
> least not every time.  But, so you can visit it if you want to, it is of
> course parsed.

The original explanation was this, i.e. nothing to do with compilers:

 > Infos are all kinds of bla, like something creating a directory, or makepp
 > telling you it's reading a makefile.  You can go to these things if you
 > want, but that's not normally required.

Please at least make a definite statement in the doc, taking into
account the examples of what compilers (that are even used for
building Emacs) actually do.

> So much for dismissing this tiring "informational"-discussion unless you have
> something new to say.

It doesn't look worthwhile to raise anything new.  Maybe someone else
will have more luck when they come across such things.