[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next-error refactoring
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: next-error refactoring |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:11:47 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004, address@hidden wrote:
> I'm trying to make next-error a universal "next DWIM" interface,
>
> I think it is better if we don't do that now; I am not sure it is
> a good idea.
>
> However, if you make a proposal and argue for it, I will think about
> it.
I've made the case several times on this mailing list. There are two
reasons:
1) There are many modes that can benefit from a next-error (or
whatever it's called by then) approach. In code, for instance,
next-error could move between functions. In dired, it could move
to the next file. In W3 it could go back/forward in the history
or between links.
2) Approaching next-error as we do now, in a haphazard fashion,
implemented specifically in every mode that needs to use it, is
painful for the developer. It's much easier to provide hooks, a
keymap, and all the other niceties of a standalone minor mode.
Users will certainly appreciate that too. Also, if and when
next-error changes, developers won't have to change their code.
Ted
- Re: next-error refactoring, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/01
- Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/02
- Re: next-error refactoring, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/03
- Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/03
- Re: next-error refactoring,
Ted Zlatanov <=
- Re: next-error refactoring, Tak Ota, 2004/06/07
- Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/08
- Re: next-error refactoring, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/11
- Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/12
- Re: next-error refactoring, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/06/30
- Re: next-error refactoring, Stefan Monnier, 2004/06/09
- Re: next-error refactoring, Juri Linkov, 2004/06/09
- Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/10
Re: next-error refactoring, Richard Stallman, 2004/06/02