Re: next-error refactoring

[Tak Ota <Takaaki.Ota@am.sony.com>]

I agree.  I'm often irritated the difference in user interface
between compilation, grep and occur.

-Tak

Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:11:47 -0400: Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004, rms@gnu.org 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel