> On 25 Oct 2015, at 21:21, Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 24.10.2015, 22:30 +0200 schrieb MigMit: >> At the very least, "bound at" should help IDEs (Emacs in particular) >> show exactly the right places. > > an IDE that offers such a deep integration will hopefully not parse > data meant for human consumption.
Hope is good. Reality, however, is different. At least haskell-mode in Emacs DOES parse such data, when you try to load your file in REPL. > IDEs should ideally make use of something based on the GHC API. I agree. But the key word here is "ideally". Second thought though — do we really want to create a gap between error messages from the compiler and whatever IDE tells us? After all, text output from GHC is ALSO a kind of API. > If that > is not possible, then I’d advocate a flag, say "-fverbose-error- > messages" or similar that includes all detail that might be relevant > for an IDE, and maybe even in a nicer-to-parse format. Doesn't seem worth it to me. Current format is quite parseable, and not really bad for human eyes either. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
