On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:41:04 +0000, Nick Treleaven <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:41:46 +0100 >Enrico Tröger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmm, it shouldn't append ".class" to %e, it only does this while >> preparing the execution to verify that the current source file >> already has been compiled (which means for javac a .class file >> exists). When using gcj, you get .o files, IIRC and so Geany's >> builtin smartness about this fails badly. >> >> Maybe we should remove this check or we perform this check only if >> filetype is Java and compiler command contains "javac" assuming that >> this will use .class files. But this seems like another ugly hack >> with potential to be error-prone. > >I think we could remove the check and just let the java interpreter >issue a 'class not found' error. Same for executables/scripts, just let >the interpreter say 'unknown command'. Then the user can make the run >command do anything they like ;-) Yes, it's probably better. Done so in SVN, I hope I didn't break too much :). Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgp1Vz0u2J532.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
