Ciao,
Would the attached patch be good?

Vincenzo

p.s. the tests come from Rust docs.


In data giovedì 6 giugno 2024 09:34:42 Ora legale dell’Europa centrale, Stefan 
Kangas ha scritto:
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:
> > 3 juni 2024 kl. 18.33 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> >> Fine by me (I don't use Rust), but is the rule really broken?  What
> >> happens if you move it to the end?
> > 
> > It is indeed broken as written because it would match anything
> > starting with 'warning:' to something that looks like an arrow further
> > down the log which could be an unrelated message a megabyte away.
> > 
> > I could try to slap together a guess at what a better one would be but
> > then again, I wouldn't use it myself (rarely use Rust and when I do
> > it's one of those external packages which have their own patterns and
> > more importantly active maintainers). Furthermore I don't have the
> > time to go poking around in the rustc (or cargo?) source code to see
> > what the message-emitting parts look like, which is very useful when
> > adding patterns.
> > 
> > Even with the obvious fixes, the pattern would still be incomplete and
> > not even match parts of the examples given. I'm happy to work with
> > Rust users or package maintainers to work out details but I don't want
> > to do a rush job now, nor delay Emacs 30.
> 
> Randy, would you be interested in working with Mattias to create a good
> `compilation-mode` regexp for Rust?