From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: kill-compilation failing when there are several compilation buffers Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:43:20 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87r6mndorr.fsf@jurta.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1185997670 31821 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2007 19:47:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 01 21:47:42 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IGKAW-0006ks-CD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:47:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKAV-0003It-UU for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:47:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKAU-0003Gw-6O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:47:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKAS-0003Gk-EJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:47:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKAS-0003Gh-8x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:47:36 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([194.126.126.39]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IGKAR-0004lA-S2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:47:36 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58EB237E78; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:47:34 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.4.3 (20060930) (Debian) at neti.ee Original-Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (MXR-2.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quGxA5DESiuZ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:47:22 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: from Relayhost1.neti.ee (Relayhost1 [88.196.174.141]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06A023B71F; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:47:22 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: from mail.estpak.ee (84-50-157-21-dsl.est.estpak.ee [84.50.157.21]) by Relayhost1.neti.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A2027BD63; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:47:21 +0300 (EEST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed\, 01 Aug 2007 14\:23\:25 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:16263 Archived-At: >> ! (if (and (compilation-buffer-internal-p (current-buffer)) >> ! (not avoid-current)) >> ! (current-buffer) >> ! (next-error-find-buffer avoid-current 'compilation-buffer-internal-p))) > > Curiously, next-error-find-buffer only checks current-buffer as its > 3rd choice. This function either needs to be changed to try the current > buffer as its first choice, or it needs a clear comment explaining why. > > It looks like this was changed by: > > revision 1.655 > date: 2004-09-01 13:05:59 -0400; author: jurta; state: Exp; lines: +45 -45; > * simple.el (next-error-find-buffer): Move the rule > "if current buffer is a next-error capable buffer" after the > rule "if next-error-last-buffer is set to a live buffer". > Simplify to test all rules in one `or'. > (next-error): Doc fix. > > where it is not explained. Juri, do you remember what was the motivation > for this change? This change was based on the conclusion of the very long discussion started from http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2004-05/msg00476.html Any change in current rules may break test cases mentioned on that thread. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/