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