Re: conflicting uses of next-error-function

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 04/30/2015 02:05 AM, Vitalie Spinu wrote:

> Shouldn't then the first invocation of next-error push into
> xref--marker-ring (for M-.) in case it took you to a wrong place?

That would be nice. Something like (unless (eq last-command 'next-error) 
(xref-push-marker-stack)).

> How about using the free M-0 prefix in next-error to prompt for the
> compilation buffer on which to operate?

Unfortunately, it's already taken: both `next-error' and 
`previous-error' take numeric arguments, and `M-0 C-`' means "move by 
zero errors".

Which looks like a waste to me: it pretty rare to move by many errors at 
a time (and know that number precisely).

`C-x 4 C-`'?