[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maintain flymake.el

From: Sebastian Wiesner
Subject: Re: maintain flymake.el
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:23:30 +0100

2013/12/6 Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden>:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to gmane.emacs.devel as well.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I'm subscribed to
emacs-devel, though, so I saw it anyway :)

> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:01:50 +0800 Leo Liu <address@hidden> wrote:
> LL> If no one objects I'd like to take the role of maintaining flymake.el.
> (courtesy CC to address@hidden)
> No objection, but I wanted to mention (since I use it)
> https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck and that I hope there could be some
> reconciliation between their configuration styles.  As the maintainer
> of cfengine.el I'd like to have a way to support both tools without
> maintaining two different configuration variables.

I do not think that this is easily possible.  There are huge
conceptual differences between Flycheck and Flymake, and it would
require a lot of glue code in either way to use the syntax checkers of
each other library.

However, at least with regards to Flycheck, you do not really need to
maintain anything.  As soon as a syntax checker lands in Flycheck,
I'll take care of it.  That's why I want test cases for contributed
syntax checkers :)

> It would be nice to see a comparison table between the two, as well.

I started to work on a comparsion table in the Flycheck wiki at
https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck/wiki/Comparsion.  It's not
finished yet, but I hope for it to be complete and mostly neutral.

Being the author of Flycheck, I do consider Flycheck completely
superior in all aspects, and such you may find this table unfairly
biased towards Flycheck.  Please excuse any wrong tendencies or any
factual mistakes, and suggest improvements.

I hope to finish the document by tomorrow evening, and will come back
if it's done.

> (I am not bringing up Semantic here because it's a different use case.  I 
> think.)
> Thanks
> Ted

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]