Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * David Kastrup (2008-06-08) writes: > >> Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Although the approach fails at the example mentioned above i looks more >>> robust to me than what AUCTeX does, namely walking through the whole >>> output and maintaining a stack of strings where some are file names and >>> some are not. I thought about checking for file readability as well >>> when pushing elements onto the stack but this would make deciding which >>> names to pop from the stack much more difficult when a closing paren is >>> found. >> >> My take on that is that we should not pop at all but rather record the >> nesting level. And when trying to match, we go through the list, weed >> out non-existing files and try matching on the existing ones, starting >> with those that are "topologically close" in the nesting until we match >> the actual error in question. > > IIRC you suggested this before, but I don't see the benefit of recording > all the file names, assuming the file name in question can be determined > on demand (as done in tex-mode.el).
I just don't believe in that assumption. That's all. Anyway, the recording solution is likely going to be faster when we are doing a large batch of error messages like preview-latex does. About normal AUCTeX error processing: no idea. It should probably be brought into line with Emacs' normal error processing, and the mechanism picked accordingly. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
