[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Flymake support for C/C++

From: Reuben Thomas
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Flymake support for C/C++
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:15:52 +0100

On 14 October 2017 at 09:00, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> From: Reuben Thomas <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:10:44 +0100
> Cc: João Távora <address@hidden>,
>       Sami Kerola <address@hidden>, address@hidden, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>,
>       Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, Noam Postavsky <address@hiddennet>, address@hidden,
>       Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> These days, it seems much better to use Flycheck than Flymake (that's certainly what I do). See
> https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck
> It would be a pity for Flymake to become yet another part of Emacs that developers spend time updating and
> users largely ignore; better to spin it off into ELPA, and if people still want to work on it there, fine. Meanwhile,
> why not use Flycheck by default (in the same way as we've "in-sourced" Org and other packages)?

I don't understand: Flycheck is an external package; why should we
prefer it to Flymake, assuming that the latter will become supported
well by the built-in major modes?

And I suggested precisely bundling Flycheck with Emacs.​

IOW, what I see here is a serious effort to make Flymake a
sophisticated and flexible syntax-checking tool bundled with Emacs.  I
don't see why should we object to such an effort, when one of our
major goals is to provide a modern program development environment.

​Because with Flycheck this is already accomplished. Why not work instead on things that Emacs lacks?​ There are already far too many duplicated packages, leading to duplicated maintenance effort.


reply via email to

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