bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Dan Jacobson]

compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error
even if there was no errors that it found.
So it should differentiate such cases.
M-x compile

make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
emacs-version "29.1"

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Jacobson <jidanni@jidanni.org>
> Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 03:19:30 -0500
> 
> compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error
> even if there was no errors that it found.
> So it should differentiate such cases.
> M-x compile
> 
> make
> make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
> 
> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.

FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.

So my vote is to close this as "wontfix".

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
>> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
>
> FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
> error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
> code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.

The problem I see is that we're displaying a general message, when a
more specific one could have been displayed instead.  I'm not against
fixing this minor blemish, if it can be done in a clean way.

This bug report would be more compelling if it came with a patch, of
course.

> So my vote is to close this as "wontfix".

That's also an option, yes.

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 02:00:50 -0700
> Cc: 65713@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
> >> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
> > error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
> > code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.
> 
> The problem I see is that we're displaying a general message, when a
> more specific one could have been displayed instead.  I'm not against
> fixing this minor blemish, if it can be done in a clean way.

Would it be enough to say something like

  Moved past last error, if any

?

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Dan Jacobson]

>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
EZ> Would it be enough to say something like

EZ>   Moved past last error, if any

OK, that would make me feel better.

That way at least I wouldn't go on wild goose chases looking for the
error I missed.

Actually I still would, but at least I wouldn't feel as bad when I
didn't find any.

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Would it be enough to say something like
>
>   Moved past last error, if any
>
> ?

That has the problem that it's less specific than it could be.  So I'm
not sure it would be enough of an improvement to justify the change.

Perhaps it's better to do nothing here.

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Rudolf Adamkovič via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> FWIW, I don't see any need for such a
> feature.

For what is worth, as a long-term heavy user
of the Compilation mode, I find the message
confusing as well, on a daily basis.

> "Moved past the last error" is correct even
> if there are no errors, [...]

Is it really correct to say that the point
"moved" when it did not move?

Rudy
-- 
"The introduction of suitable abstractions is our only mental aid to
organize and master complexity."
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com>
> Cc: 65713@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:57:07 +0200
> 
> > "Moved past the last error" is correct even
> > if there are no errors, [...]
> 
> Is it really correct to say that the point
> "moved" when it did not move?

Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Rudolf Adamkovič via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Is it really correct to say that the point
>> "moved" when it did not move?
>
> Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?

That sounds like a good idea.

Rudy
-- 
"I love deadlines.  I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by."
-- Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt, 2002

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com>
> Cc: jidanni@jidanni.org, 65713@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 22:18:06 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Is it really correct to say that the point
> >> "moved" when it did not move?
> >
> > Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea.

Done on master, and closing the bug.