Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!sun!limes From: limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: EMACS better than Vi? Message-ID: <52710@sun.uucp> Date: 10 May 88 20:12:46 GMT References: <449@novavax.UUCP> <10000003@snail> <52207@sun.uucp> <52330@sun.uucp> <2135@bgsuvax.UUCP> Reply-To: limes@sun.UUCP (Greg Limes) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 19 In article <2135@bgsuvax.UUCP> ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: >In article <52330@sun.uucp>, limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) writes: >> Compile, toss the errors in a *compilation* window (while you edit >> something else), and step from error to error in the source code > >OK . . . this is one I really like . . . just how do you do this using fortran? This is (should be) language independent; EMACS asks you for the compilation command ("make -k" is default) and traps the output. The command can be anything, so long as its output contains the right indicators for filenames and line numbers in error messages. In fact, since you can edit the output (it does not get scanned until needed), stuff in a slightly improper format can be edited into the right format. (on the other hand, you can also take the output of a compile and feed it to the unix "error" command, and edit with VI; but "error" touches all the files named, even if you dont want to correct the error.) -- Greg Limes [limes@sun.com] Illigitimi Non Carborundum