Re: next-error use cases

[Juri Linkov]

>> > > Define some kind of priority between them?
>> > I really doubt we can define priorities such that the user will always
>> > want to see the errors of some "kind" before the others.
>>
>> Then maybe this problem has no workable solution at all, and we
>> shouldn't try running all those features from the same command.
>
> We could try, but in cases of doubt, ask the user what "next-error"
> function he wants to use (and provide some command for actively
> switching between them).  For example, after calling "next-error" in
> some dubious case, the user could be offered a list of functions to
> choose between:
>
> - next Compile error from *compile*<dir>
> - next Occur result from *scratch*
> - next Grep result from *grep*<dir2>
> ...

Answering this after every next-error command would be too tedious for users,
and it's not clear how to reduce the frequency of such questions, i.e.
how to detect only dubious cases.

> There could also be other interfaces to pick a next-error function (a
> menu, or something like M-x list-buffers).

Recently we created such command with the name ‘next-error-select-buffer’.
Still too inconvenient for users to run this command explicitly.
We need next-error to be more DWIM.