On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:50:03 +0100 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:03:02 +1100, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/27 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:52:18 +0100 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
Well, *if* this is the cause, I think it would be best to limit the errors. Error indicators are useful up to a point, but who is really going to look at each error for >50, >100, >200 errors? If there are a lot, they're likely caused by the same problem.
I agree with Nick, I always click on the error to go to the offending source line, but after fixing the first few errors I tend to re-compile to see if I actually fixed them and how many of the rest are consequential errors. So limiting how many are highlighted (or even how many are displayed if the treeview is the problem) may be a solution for slow machines and speeding up the turnaround fits well with my workflow.
Hmm ok, why not. You are both right, that usually fixing the first few errors solves the other 100 errors as well :). And if not, then there is probably a much bigger problem in the used code, haha.
Such an option should be optional with default value 0 for no limit IMHO.
Cheers, Frank