Re: conflicting uses of next-error-function

[Vitalie Spinu]

 >>> Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 30 Apr 2015 02:11:52 +0300 wrote:

 > 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)).

Yes. But don't offend the `previous-error ;)

 >> 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".

Hm... I thought that's useless, but it actually makes sense.

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

If after me, numeric prefixes for all navigation commands are pretty a
wasteful. I never use those.

> `C-x 4 C-`'?

It's actually longer "C-x 4 C-x `"'

M-g map is pretty empty. Maybe "M-g e" and M-g M-e? Easy to type on
qwerty.

  Vitalie

(BTW, would be nice to have "M-g c" bound to `goto-char` to keep company
to "M-g g")