I can look at the options here at a later point. I haven't had much time to think about the future, given that I've assumed the Flycheck maintenance relatively soon. My short-term focus is harvesting some low-hanging fruit (like the package inclusion on NonGNU ELPA).
Compiling a reasonable long-term vision for the future (including some form of built-in interop with Flymake) will take some time and I think it'd better to discuss this separately.
On 21/02/2024 23:19, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Another thing is that we could use a good built-in macro to define
> flymake backends.
>
> Perhaps Steve Purcell (added to CC) could be convinced to contribute his
> excellent flymake-flycheck[2] and flymake-easy[3] packages to core?
> This would kill two (or more) birds with one stone, and also remove some
> of the gripes that some users have with flymake.
There doesn't seem much point in having flymake-flycheck in the core
when flycheck is still required to use most of its backends (they're
part of the package). It also depends on flycheck at runtime anyway.
flymake-easy has another problem: IIUC it hasn't been updated for 10
years, and as such only uses the obsolete Flymake protocol (one we keep
in flymake-proc.el for compatibility). It also employs defadvice.
Back to flymake-flycheck, I wonder if it would be a better idea to have
it as part of the flycheck package itself (fewer things to install and
enable separately). But then it's not obvious at which point the
checkers should be made available to flymake. If that happens when
flycheck-mode is enabled, that would be too late: at that point the user
has seemingly indicated that they want to use flycheck as UI as well.
>