A.Politz wrote: > Jonathan Frawley wrote: > [...] >> ---- >> >> >> On-The-Fly Code Checking Proposal >> >> Proposed Organization : Vim >> Name : Jonathan Frawley >> University : Trinity College Dublin >> Course : Computer Science >> >> Abstract : >> An attempt at speeding up the edit-compile-edit cycle which plagues >> programmers. >> A good way of doing this would be an update after every line gets written or >> one at a predefined timeout. >> Once the person has corrected the error, unhighlight it. >> >> The current system for detecting errors in vim is to use quickfix, which can >> run through errors after compilation. It can also display a group errors >> using the error window. >> >> This project will focus primarily on using the existing quickfix mechanism >> and modifying it to display the errors as highlighted words. >> A similar highlighting mechanism can be seen here : >> http://elephant.linux.net.cn/files/vim_screenshot.png. >> >> One option would be... > [...] > > The highlighting is not really the problem. The next paragraph is an > excerpt from the emacs info page. I think it sums it pretty much up, > what this is about. > > "Flymake is a universal on-the-fly syntax checker implemented as an > Emacs minor mode. Flymake runs the pre-configured syntax check tool > (compiler for C++ files, `perl' for perl files, etc.) in the > background, passing it a temporary copy of the current buffer, and > parses the output for known error/warning message patterns. Flymake > then highlights erroneous lines (i.e. lines for which at least one > error or warning has been reported by the syntax check tool), and > displays an overall buffer status in the mode line. Status information > displayed by Flymake contains total number of errors and warnings > reported for the buffer during the last syntax check." > > > I think this stands or falls with the ability to have vim run > a compiler in the background, because nobody would use it, if > they had to pause editing in order to wait for the tool to check > the syntax. > Next question would be, when to invoke this checks and if existing > mechanisms could/should be used. > > Maybe the emacs manual would be a good further read ( and the code, if > you understand lisp ) because it is fairly general implemented (as > opposed to eclipse (?) ). > > Note:That's just my opinion, I have nothing to decide here. > > -ap
IMHO this "feature", if ever it gets implemented, should be easy to disable -- ideally, again IMHO, it should be off by default, because I don't want any compiler to run, in the background or otherwise, when I edit source files, except when _I_ decide it's time to try and see if the program compiles. I already got enough stuff running in the background (and started by the system's init scripts) as it is. Best regards, Tony. -- A New York City judge ruled that if two women behind you at the movies insist on discussing the probable outcome of the film, you have the right to turn around and blow a Bronx cheer at them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
