GNU bug report logs - #65713
compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 65713 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 65713 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error, even when none
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 03:19:30 -0500

compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error
even if there was no errors that it found.
So it should differentiate such cases.
M-x compile

make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
emacs-version "29.1"

Message #8 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 11:45:43 +0300

> From: Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 03:19:30 -0500
> 
> compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error
> even if there was no errors that it found.
> So it should differentiate such cases.
> M-x compile
> 
> make
> make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
> 
> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.

FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.

So my vote is to close this as "wontfix".

Message #11 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 02:00:50 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
>> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
>
> FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
> error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
> code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.

The problem I see is that we're displaying a general message, when a
more specific one could have been displayed instead.  I'm not against
fixing this minor blemish, if it can be done in a clean way.

This bug report would be more compelling if it came with a patch, of
course.

> So my vote is to close this as "wontfix".

That's also an option, yes.

Message #14 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 12:07:36 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 02:00:50 -0700
> Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> OK, there was no error, so instead of "Moved past last error" it should
> >> say "Didn't find any errors" when asked.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't see any need for such a feature.  "Moved past the last
> > error" is correct even if there are no errors, and complicating the
> > code for such hair-splitting is not justified, IMO.
> 
> The problem I see is that we're displaying a general message, when a
> more specific one could have been displayed instead.  I'm not against
> fixing this minor blemish, if it can be done in a clean way.

Would it be enough to say something like

  Moved past last error, if any

?

Message #19 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:07:49 -0500

>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
EZ> Would it be enough to say something like

EZ>   Moved past last error, if any

OK, that would make me feel better.

That way at least I wouldn't go on wild goose chases looking for the
error I missed.

Actually I still would, but at least I wouldn't feel as bad when I
didn't find any.

Message #22 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 07:40:22 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Would it be enough to say something like
>
>   Moved past last error, if any
>
> ?

That has the problem that it's less specific than it could be.  So I'm
not sure it would be enough of an improvement to justify the change.

Perhaps it's better to do nothing here.

Message #25 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:57:07 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> FWIW, I don't see any need for such a
> feature.

For what is worth, as a long-term heavy user
of the Compilation mode, I find the message
confusing as well, on a daily basis.

> "Moved past the last error" is correct even
> if there are no errors, [...]

Is it really correct to say that the point
"moved" when it did not move?

Rudy
-- 
"The introduction of suitable abstractions is our only mental aid to
organize and master complexity."
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

Message #28 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:15:57 +0300

> From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
> Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:57:07 +0200
> 
> > "Moved past the last error" is correct even
> > if there are no errors, [...]
> 
> Is it really correct to say that the point
> "moved" when it did not move?

Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?

Message #31 received at 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 22:18:06 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> Is it really correct to say that the point
>> "moved" when it did not move?
>
> Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?

That sounds like a good idea.

Rudy
-- 
"I love deadlines.  I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by."
-- Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt, 2002

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

Message #36 received at 65713-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
Cc: 65713-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#65713: compilation-next-error says: Moved past last error,
 even when none
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 11:02:41 +0300

> From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
> Cc: jidanni <at> jidanni.org, 65713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 22:18:06 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Is it really correct to say that the point
> >> "moved" when it did not move?
> >
> > Would it help to remove the "Moved" part?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea.

Done on master, and closing the bug.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.