[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation* |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:02:12 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Marshall, Simon" <address@hidden> writes:
>> But scrolling still has to occur for you to be able to see if
> there's
>> anything to read.
>>
>> That is not true. Starting a new compilation erases the buffer.
>> So you will certainly see that the output has started. Then you
>> can read it at your own pace.
>
> Yes, you can read it by scrolling through it - that was my point above.
> With a default of nil you still _always_ have to scroll yourself,
> whereas with a default of t you _only_ have to scroll yourself if (a)
> you see there is something worth reading and (b) the compilation hasn't
> stopped anyway because that something was a fatal error. And with t you
> get the visual cue of progress status.
>
>> If it scrolls automatically I often can't even SEE if there is
>> something I want to look at. And supposing I do see, by the time
>> I can get my hands on the keyboard to type anything, a lot more
>> output will usually have come out.
>
> Iff you think you might have missed something, then you can scroll
> back.
Uh no, you can't. By the time you found the Prior button, twenty pages
of material will have gone by.
--
David Kastrup
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, (continued)
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/05
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/05
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, David Kastrup, 2008/02/06
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/07
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Miles Bader, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*,
David Kastrup <=
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, David Kastrup, 2008/02/07
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, David Kastrup, 2008/02/07
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Juri Linkov, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Juri Linkov, 2008/02/06