I try not to make incompatible changes. I would love to completely redesign
it at some point but for now you can consider that part stable. If I need
to redesign that part I'll probably simply implement a new command.

Regards,
Elias
On 7 Oct 2014 01:11, "David B. Lamkins" <dlamk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did I? I guess it's a matter of interpretation. Emacs uses origin-1 for
> line numbers, while APL uses origin-0.
>
> Clearly it makes sense to maintain the Emacs sense of line numbers.
>
> It's still proper to commit the fix (with the +1) since otherwise
> gnu-apl-mode will be wrong in the case where APL runs in origin-0.
>
> This won't fix Blake's issue. I'll need to parse the wire protocol and
> adjust the result. Just how stable is the wire protocol...?
>
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:18 +0800, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
> > Thanks. I'll integrate it once I get home. Although you missed a +1
> > there. The error is reported as a line number, not an APL jump index,
> > which is conceptually different thing.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Elias
> >
> > On 6 Oct 2014 01:05, "David B. Lamkins" <dlamk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >         Thanks, Blake. This is best fixed in libemacs.
> >
> >         Elias: The attached patch makes a failed function definition
> >         report an
> >         origin-independent line number.
> >
> >         On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 07:29 -0500, Blake McBride wrote:
> >         > Looks good, but one very small problem - when it reports the
> >         line
> >         > number with the error, it is off by one.  In other words,
> >         line
> >         > references in the editor (and in APL) start at 0, but when
> >         it reports
> >         > the error it reports the line number as if they start at 1.
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > Thanks.
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > Blake
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, David B. Lamkins
> >         <da...@lamkins.net>
> >         > wrote:
> >         >         Fixed and pushed.
> >         >
> >         >         On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 08:08 -0500, Blake McBride
> >         wrote:
> >         >         > This is still a problem.  It can create a real
> >         loss of work.
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         > Thanks.
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         > Blake
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Chris Moller
> >         >         <mol...@mollerware.com>
> >         >         > wrote:
> >         >         >         Actually, saving shouldn't close the
> >         window in any
> >         >         event.
> >         >         >         I'll poke at it.  Right now, I'm looking
> >         at the
> >         >         open-function
> >         >         >         problem.
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >         On 09/12/14 18:46, Blake McBride wrote:
> >         >         >
> >         >         >         > Greetings,
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         > Let's say you create a large APL
> >         function using
> >         >         File / New.
> >         >         >         >  If just one line has an open quote that
> >         isn't
> >         >         closed, you
> >         >         >         > lose all of your work.  I think aplwrap
> >         should
> >         >         test the
> >         >         >         > result of ⎕FX before it exits.  If ⎕FX
> >         fails,
> >         >         display the
> >         >         >         > line number with the error and remain in
> >         the
> >         >         editor so all
> >         >         >         > of your work isn't lost.
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         > Thanks.
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         > Blake
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to