From: "João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
Cc: 59954@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#59954: 29.0.50; flymake-reporting-backends documentation could use some work
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 11:28:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87edt6gowp.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmm0oZob7NuB-aBCk2ybf=WSMAUc-UOFgsrTM+As_H7vRg@mail.gmail.com> (Stefan Kangas's message of "Sat, 10 Dec 2022 15:26:18 -0800")
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
> The docstring of `flymake-reporting-backends' says:
>
> Compute reporting Flymake backends in current buffer.
From all the Flymake backends present in `flymake-diagnostic-functions',
the "reporting" ones are the ones that have reported back, i.e. called
their REPORT-FN arguments.
The distinction is (mildly) useful because the Lisp function that
implements them always returns, but that doesn't necessarily mean that
the backend has arranged for the REPORT-FN callback to be called. When
it is called, the backend enters the "reporting set".
> It is also not really explained in (info "(flymake) Troubleshooting").
> More precisely, I think it must be spelled out how it's different from
> `flymake-running-backends', and in which situations one would want to
> use one or the other.
A "running" backend is simply a backend which has been activated
> I understand that the "reporting" ones are basically the union of the
> running and disabled ones, right?
Not necessarily. A backend may be running and we haven't yet decided if
it will become a reporting backend or a disabled one.
> "reporting"? That is not immediately clear to me. Surely if they are
> disabled, they are *not* reporting? This could use some explanation.
Best explanation is in these notes and in the code. There is partially
a historical rationale, as I was trying to keep the visual interface of
the old Flymake reasonably intact, and AFAIR it had representation for
all these states.
But there is also a fair bit of overengineering here. It makes sense to
represent the states internally, but I've never ever found those
interactive functions useful. Maybe a bit in the early days of
debugging... IMO you could just trash them or redesign them into a
tabulated list or something.
João
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-11 11:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-10 23:26 bug#59954: 29.0.50; flymake-reporting-backends documentation could use some work Stefan Kangas
2022-12-11 11:28 ` João Távora [this message]
2022-12-11 11:36 ` João Távora
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87edt6gowp.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=joaotavora@gmail.com \
--cc=59954@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=stefankangas@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.