[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: address@hidden: Re: next-error vs. bash]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:22:13 -0500

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: address@hidden
From: Dan Jacobson <address@hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:21:50 +0800
Subject: Re: next-error vs. bash
Sender: address@hidden
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (

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")
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
------- End of forwarded message -------

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]