From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: M-x compile for different file extensions
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:12:44 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E183pTI-0000Od-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <iPgs9.26259$wU3.2299106@news0.telusplanet.net> <200210200000.g9K00B5d021923@beta.mvs.co.il>  <E183JQR-0005QH-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <200210201952.g9KJqnx12700@rum.cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035256448 7372 80.91.224.249 (22 Oct 2002 03:14:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:14:08 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ehud@unix.mvs.co.il, wgh@askme.ok, henrik+news@enberg.org,
	emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 183pUV-0001tg-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:13:59 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 183pVX-00047l-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:15:03 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 183pUP-0004Fn-00; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:13:53 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 183pTL-0003VL-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:12:47 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 183pTJ-0003TK-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:12:46 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 183pTJ-0003Sm-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:12:45 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 183pTI-0000Od-00; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:12:44 -0400
Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu
In-reply-to: <200210201952.g9KJqnx12700@rum.cs.yale.edu>
	(monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:8628
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8628

    > It is sort of unfortunate that we have the conflict between two
    > meanings we would like RET to have in the compilation buffer: "visit
    > the source code for a particular error message", and "send a line of
    > input".  We have used it for the former ever since that convention
    > existed in Emacs (several years ago), but would it be better to use
    > it for the latter instead?

    We could probably let RET do something like
    (if (eobp) (send-to-process) (goto-error))

This is a good solution if users prefer it.