[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program
From: |
Augusto Stoffel |
Subject: |
bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Sep 2022 14:38:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
With the attached patch I believe I've addressed all comments from this
and previous messages. (In case I missed some detail, the committer
should feel free to make any desired copyediting.)
0001-New-Flymake-backend-using-the-shellcheck-program.patch
Description: Text Data
On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 at 11:55, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I could split this into two defcustoms if you feel strongly about it,
>> but it seems a bit of overengineering to me. Not many people will want
>>to customize the program name, and the switches would have to be
>> provided as a list anyway, since we're not going to call this through a
>> shell.
>
> I think it would be good, because then you could make the flags file
> local in case you need something special, without having to worry about
> some evil file that sets the command to
>
> '("rm" "-rf" "--no-preserve-root" "/")
>
Well, fine then. I've split this into two variables.
> I don't use `named-let' that much, but calling both the result and the
> recursive function `dialect' seems confusing to me.
>
Welcome to Lisp-2...
>> + (pattern "^-:\\([0-9]+\\):\\([0-9]+\\): \\([^:]+\\): \\(.*\\)$")
>
> Do you think that that using `rx' would make this pattern more maintainable?
>
I use rx often, but I think this is still at a level where rx doesn't
really help much.
>> + (sentinel
>> + (lambda (proc _event)
>
> Wouldn't it be cleaner to pull this lambda out into a separate named function?
>
That's not possible, it needs to be in that lexical scope.
>> + (setq sh--shellcheck-process
>> + (make-process
>> + :name "luacheck" :noquery t :connection-type 'pipe
> ^
> Typo?
>
>> + :buffer (generate-new-buffer " *flymake-luacheck*")
> ^
> same here
Ouch, fixed.
> Also what happens if someone doesn't have shellcheck installed?
Then Flymake logs a warning and disables the backend. The error message
will be whatever make-process gives, which I find more than good enough.
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Augusto Stoffel, 2022/09/17
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/09/17
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program,
Augusto Stoffel <=
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Augusto Stoffel, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Augusto Stoffel, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/18
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Augusto Stoffel, 2022/09/19
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/19
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Augusto Stoffel, 2022/09/24
- bug#57884: [PATCH] Flymake backend using the shellcheck program, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/09/24