Subject: Re: bug#60830: 30.0.50; The *Compilation* buffer does not recognize Lua errors

From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:09:11 -0800

Mattias Engdegård <[email-masked]> writes:

> 10 jan. 2024 kl. 14.48 skrev Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>:
>
>> Thank you, installed on master (cd0eb055fd4) and closing the bug.
>
> Sorry for falling behind on this bug, and thank you for helping me
> catch up.
>
> However I wasn't actually finished here: the new regexps are still
> annoyingly close to other patterns that mismatches and/or bad
> performance cannot be ruled out, and it would be good to have a way to
> deal with it.

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding on my part.  I thought we were done
discussing it.  Feel free to revert the change and reopen the bug, or
whatever else you think makes sense here.

> I'm tempted go about disabling large swaths of rules since for every
> useful contemporary rule like Gnu, Typescript and yes, Lua, there seem
> to be a half-dozen ones for niche and/or outright antiquated tools.
>
> Anyway, I performed some minimum maintenance on the new Lua patterns
> but can't promise that they be enabled by default in the end -- it's
> not that they aren't useful but risk of interference.

If we can't even enable new patterns due to risk of interference, then
it's clear that we've dug ourselves into a hole.

How about adding a new user option `compilation-enabled-errors' where
you could disable (or enable) the ones you are interested in, and then
generate `compilation-error-regexp-alist-alist' based on that?  That
would provide a convenient way for users to get back the support for
their trusty Jikes compiler or whatever.  We should probably also
support using it as a directory local variable somehow, so that projects
could set this only once.

> (And it's probably high time I made a batch conversion of the
> remaining patterns to rx.)

That would help maintenance, so I'm all for it.