|
From: | Reuben Thomas |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Flymake support for C/C++ |
Date: | Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:15:52 +0100 |
> From: Reuben Thomas <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:10:44 +0100
> Cc: João Távora <address@hidden>,
> Sami Kerola <address@hidden>, address@hidden, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>,
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, Noam Postavsky <address@hiddennet >, address@hidden,
> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>
> These days, it seems much better to use Flycheck than Flymake (that's certainly what I do). See
> https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck
>
> It would be a pity for Flymake to become yet another part of Emacs that developers spend time updating and
> users largely ignore; better to spin it off into ELPA, and if people still want to work on it there, fine. Meanwhile,
> why not use Flycheck by default (in the same way as we've "in-sourced" Org and other packages)?
I don't understand: Flycheck is an external package; why should we
prefer it to Flymake, assuming that the latter will become supported
well by the built-in major modes?
IOW, what I see here is a serious effort to make Flymake a
sophisticated and flexible syntax-checking tool bundled with Emacs. I
don't see why should we object to such an effort, when one of our
major goals is to provide a modern program development environment.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |