From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jorgen Grahn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs as a C Programming IDE Configuration? Date: 9 May 2011 12:53:44 GMT Message-ID: References: <430fcda1-6ad7-4078-baf8-58608a30c302@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306268664 18320 80.91.229.12 (24 May 2011 20:24:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:24:24 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 24 22:24:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QOy9M-0007a8-A0 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:24:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48770 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOy9L-0005RJ-R3 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:24:19 -0400 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Trace: individual.net 8g9qeYzZWRjKGfswr7qsnQn7ypCFyhZFuKf+mJ1ubekDaSFZNE Cancel-Lock: sha1:RJlOQ4bB/5l1RgppVgVIAnRvBJs= User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:186824 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:81138 Archived-At: On Mon, 2011-05-09, despen@verizon.net wrote: ... > Anyway, just about everything I do is Makefile based. I see lots of > people use Makefiles for the compile phase but I find that the test > phase is intricately linked to the development phase and I combine both > operations. Agreed. "make check" should rebuild the automated tests if needed, and execute them. > It works for me and it works well, so I'll continue to push the viewpoint > unless someone can explain why it's better to jump into M-x shell and > start firing off random commands That's quite a big leap from "the Makefile should run the unit tests" to "there is nothing you may want to do in a shell". > as if they may never have to issue them again Modern shells (at least tcsh, bash and zsh) have persistent history and incremental search. I rarely have to type a complex command from scratch, if I did something similar in the past few weeks. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn O o .