On 12/12/2014 04:19, Peter Gammie wrote:
On 11 Dec 2014, at 19:26, Ian Zimmerman <itz at buug.org> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 20:52:36 -0600, Peter Gammie <peteg42 at gmail.com> wrote:
Peter> Me neither. Hide it under a flag? Or are you (and Makarius) Peter> suggesting that I hand-roll my own REPL? (I?m not adverse to that Peter> either.)
FWIW, I have hacked Stefan?s SML mode to understand PolyML error messages.
Yes, I should have been clearer: this is not (just) about the emacs sml-mode but the generic emacs ?compile? machinery. The latter could be educated to understand Poly/ML?s warnings and errors, or Poly/ML could conform to some ?standard?. I was sounding David out about the latter, and also about Poly/ML?s REPL.
I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression in my earlier comment. By saying that I thought the approach was "rather old fashioned" I was trying to say that I felt there was now the scope to do more than simply parse text error messages. I wasn't trying to imply anything about emacs itself.
I seem to recall that the current format of error messages was designed to be parsed by emacs but probably as long ago as the 1980s. I have no objection at all to changing the format to something more appropriate. It probably needs no more than a change to the bit of code around line 443 in basis/FinalPolyML.sml that assembles a text error message from the location information. If you want to experiment and send me a patch that works for you I'm happy to look at it.
David