Re: next-error-last-buffer

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    >     next-error-no-visit: M-n
    > 
    > Let's call that forward-error-message.
    > 
    >     previous-error-no-visit: M-p
    > 
    > Let's call that backward-error-message.

    Wouldn't that be confusing?  We already have the prefixing adjectives
    "next" and "previous" established, now users have to also remember
    "forward" and "backward."

I think people will understand them.  These names follow tradition,
make sense, and are clean; the others are clumsy.

    I also find the forward-/backward- prefixes inappropriate in this
    case; to me they indicate movement in the current buffer or some
    other "closed context".

That's exactly what these commands are: they move forward and back in
the current buffer, moving by error messages.  Here's what they were
proposed to replace:

    next-error-no-visit: M-n
      compilation-mode-map
	M-n      compilation-next-error
      diff-mode-shared-map
	M-n      diff-hunk-next
      occur-mode-map
	M-n      occur-next