|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2016-07-29 20:00 CEST|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0006481||OCaml||OCaml general||public||2014-07-10 18:12||2014-11-13 11:58|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0006481: compiler option to enable color in important keywords of the output in a terminal|
Keywords such as (File, Warning, Error, line, characters),
if colored differently than the rest of the text
allow developpers to catch more easily with the eyes
important parts of the output messages.
If there was a way to allow choosing the color for
a given keyword, for example via an env. var. or
a .rc file, that would be wonderful.
I have used various ways to do that over the years out
of the compiler, but it always gets broken at some point.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
Are you talking about the toplevel? I don't think it would be worth the trouble implementing this.
Syntax-coloring rightly belongs in the text editor or IDE that you use to write OCaml code.
|No, I am talking about the compiler messages.|
|Should I look only into yacc/error.c in order to enable this?|
No, those are the errors raised by the ocamlyacc program (when parsing a .mly file). The syntax errors for OCaml are handled in parsing/syntaxerr.ml, but they call utility function in parsing/location.ml that do the actual location-reporting and warning/error printing job.
Note that Merlin ( https://github.com/the-lambda-church/merlin [^] ) already does the job of giving visual signals about the error/warning status, and does many other things. Working with compiler messages outside a text editor is a waste of time, as long as it doesn't let you automatically jump to the error location in the right file -- a major time-saver. I'm skeptical about coloring the batch output for this reason.
If you are using your eyes to parse the output of the compiler looking for error and warning messages, you are doing it wrong. Emacs has had a mode for that for more than 25 years, and I expect other IDEs to have the same functionality. You shouldn't be using the compiler in a terminal, except for simple testing.
I'm strongly inclined to reject this feature wish because it represents a lot of implementation work and the benefit is negative (it discourages users from using a good IDE).
Any dissenting opinion?
|this can be closed I think|
|2014-07-10 18:12||berenger||New Issue|
|2014-07-16 16:22||doligez||Note Added: 0011850|
|2014-07-16 16:22||doligez||Status||new => feedback|
|2014-07-16 16:39||berenger||Note Added: 0011855|
|2014-07-16 16:39||berenger||Status||feedback => new|
|2014-08-20 18:10||berenger||Note Added: 0012029|
|2014-08-20 20:51||gasche||Note Added: 0012031|
|2014-08-21 11:23||doligez||Note Added: 0012039|
|2014-08-21 11:23||doligez||Status||new => feedback|
|2014-11-13 11:27||berenger||Note Added: 0012525|
|2014-11-13 11:27||berenger||Status||feedback => new|
|2014-11-13 11:58||gasche||Status||new => resolved|
|2014-11-13 11:58||gasche||Resolution||open => won't fix|
|2014-11-13 11:58||gasche||Assigned To||=> gasche|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group|