Re: Flymake refactored

[joaotavora@gmail.com (João Távora)]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> That's OK.  We want to allow this in scratch branches.

Yeah, but boy does it spam emacs-diffs. Can we enable push -f in just
the scratch branches. I don't know if its possible but Google says it's
a pretty commonly requested feature.

> "Hard to do generically + not particularly useful" qualifies as
> "with regret" I think ;-)

Au contraire, with delight, it's not everyday that a hard thing to do is
useless :-)

> enough of the details to be sure, but my gut feeling tells me that it'll
> be hard to preserve the desirable properties while interfacing
> through flymake (since it's targeted at a very different use case).

I don't know (I also haven't looked at the code) but none of those
things sound like showstoppers.  For a start, I'd be happy just
preserving the fact that it isn't based on regexps.  The only thing a
backend has to do is tell flymake where some problems exist. Even a naive
solution like running nmxl in a subprocess emacs and prin1'int a list of
collected errors, like we do for elisp-flymake-byte-compile now,
shouldn't be horrible.

>> Didn't do this too.  If we mark it obsolete, what's the "use instead"
>> message?
> Don't know.  flymake-diagnostic-functions?

Yeah, but right now that's saying "this bit is obsolete, go write a
replacement and then use that instead. good luck "

Regarding the merge to emacs-26, do you see anything else we need to
iron out before it?

João