[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs and GFortran
From: |
Steve Kargl |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs and GFortran |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:23:12 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 12:49:09PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Steve Kargl <address@hidden> writes:
> >> > Frankly, I strongly prefer the current error formating.
> >
> > I agree with FX.
>
> So, _every single detail_ of the current error message format is sacred?
Of course not! OTOH, with so little time and so few people
working of making gfortran actuallyi work as a compiler, these
little suggest are way of the radar.
> What's being suggested is a fairly minor change -- the bulk of the error
> messages would remain exactly the same.
You apparently have never looked at the source code or the
gfortran testsuite. You underestimate the impact of your
demand.
> [Surely you recognize the worth of such standardization?]
Don't be condescending! I've spent the last 3 to 4 years
fixing gfortran either through my own patches or reviewing
the patches of others.
> > Are you aware that gfortran can report errors that span multiple lines?
>
> All we want is enough information to get close; the first line will do
> in such cases.
You have the source code. Get a copyright assignment.
Submit a patch.
--
Steve
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, (continued)
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Miles Bader, 2006/10/31
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Angelo Graziosi, 2006/10/31
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Steve Kargl, 2006/10/31
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Angelo Graziosi, 2006/10/31
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Chong Yidong, 2006/10/31
- Re: Emacs and GFortran, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/10/31
Re: Emacs and GFortran, François-Xavier Coudert, 2006/10/30