Re: conflicting uses of next-error-function

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 5 May 2015 05:28:36 +0300 Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote: 

DG> On 05/05/2015 01:21 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> If we agree to implement a `next-error-priority', then perhaps
>> `next-error-find-buffer' should penalize buried buffers by subtracting
>> from their priority.  Thus buffers most recently buried will have the
>> lowest priority.

DG> Well yes, if we add a new variable buffers like *compile* set, we
DG> could detect them easily. And if we not only penalized but also
DG> removed buffers with priority 0, the list should be short enough.

Right.

DG> But would we really have any priority values aside from 0 and 100? I
DG> think it makes sense for a buffer to only contain errors for itself,
DG> or only for other buffers.

So far, we only know of those two cases, yes.  But we can adjust the
priority further by the buffer's stack position as I suggested above, or
by user-supplied criteria.  We could make it a floating-point value but
I'm not sure that would be a usability gain :)

Ted