[address@hidden: Re: next-error vs. bash]

[Richard Stallman]

The characters " line " in the error message make it nonstandard.
We can easily fix Emacs to recognize that format, but shouldn't
Bash follow the GNU standard for error messages?
(See standards.text.)

Please respond.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
From: Dan Jacobson <jidanni@jidanni.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:21:50 +0800
Subject: Re: next-error vs. bash
Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+rms=gnu.org@gnu.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0
        tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,RCVD_IN_ORBS,REFERENCES
        version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

rms> Please send a complete, self-contained test case.  I have no time
rms> to try to figure out how to genrate such an error message, how to
rms> use it, etc.

$ cat x.sh
set -u; : $r
$ emacs
(compile "sh x.sh")
(next-error)
byte-code: No more errors

even though
x.sh: line 1: r: unbound variable
is on the screen.
emacs-version "21.3.1"


_______________________________________________
Bug-gnu-emacs mailing list
Bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs
------- End of forwarded message -------