On 24 February 2014, Aaron Bohannon <aaron678@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I was a bit hasty with my wording. I do understand that
> the multiignore flag is on the implementation side of things. And
> I appreciate you tracking down the source of the inconsistency
> I noticed. I could recompile vim with your change, but at this
> point, I'm not sure what I would learn because I'm no longer what is
> *supposed* to be happening.
>
> As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I have an ever-growing
> suspicion that the errorformat mechanism is in fact just a pile of
> ad-hoc hacks without any consistent meaning. And if that's true,
> it's not a good use of my time to try to sort it out. I'm better off
> writing a special-purpose tool from scratch.
No disagreement here. In my opinion too, errorformat is a
convoluted, poorly documented, inflexible, unforgiving, impossible to
debug, inconsistent tool, that has been broken since the beginning
of time. Using it certainly does seem to come with a distinctively
masochistic air attached to it. However, useless this tool isn't. I
happen to be the maintainer of a plugin that parses the output of ~140
different syntax checkers for ~80 languages, and every single one of
those rely on errorformat to do its job. And, believe it or not, they
actually work pretty well.
Is the world ready for a sane errorformat mechanism? Sure; it has
been so for quite a while now. That mechanism is not here yet though.
/lcd
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment