From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: conflicting uses of next-error-function Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 05:47:16 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87383bbbkr.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <83zja6b3tc.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2wxwexb.fsf@gnu.org> <83fv7kwbow.fsf@gnu.org> <55411797.2090704@yandex.ru> <554165C5.2090301@yandex.ru> <5541E20F.9000602@yandex.ru> <55455BD0.50508@yandex.ru> <55460A64.4060407@yandex.ru> <55462CDA.5040300@yandex.ru> <877fso6l2r.fsf@lifelogs.com> <55482AD4.2090403@yandex.ru> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430819487 3269 80.91.229.3 (5 May 2015 09:51:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 09:51:27 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 05 11:51:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZVV-0006iL-CU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 11:51:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37954 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZVU-0003nr-Uf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 05:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZRw-0006hY-Qd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 05:47:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZRt-000478-6y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 05:47:36 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:46826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZRt-00046v-19 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 05:47:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YpZRr-0004Vk-PE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 11:47:31 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 11:47:31 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 11:47:31 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zvmI0hXfm6hZRJb6sh3a97JGJrE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186225 Archived-At: On Tue, 5 May 2015 05:28:36 +0300 Dmitry Gutov wrote: DG> On 05/05/2015 01:21 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote: >> If we agree to implement a `next-error-priority', then perhaps >> `next-error-find-buffer' should penalize buried buffers by subtracting >> from their priority. Thus buffers most recently buried will have the >> lowest priority. DG> Well yes, if we add a new variable buffers like *compile* set, we DG> could detect them easily. And if we not only penalized but also DG> removed buffers with priority 0, the list should be short enough. Right. DG> But would we really have any priority values aside from 0 and 100? I DG> think it makes sense for a buffer to only contain errors for itself, DG> or only for other buffers. So far, we only know of those two cases, yes. But we can adjust the priority further by the buffer's stack position as I suggested above, or by user-supplied criteria. We could make it a floating-point value but I'm not sure that would be a usability gain :) Ted