[Geany-devel] multiple error message slowness - Re: Update to build support

[Enrico Tröger]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:15:41 +0100, Frank Lanitz <frank at frank.uvena.de>
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:50:03 +0100
>Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:03:02 +1100, Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >2009/1/27 Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven at btinternet.com>
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:52:18 +0100
>> >> Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at 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. 

Do we really need to add an option for this?
In the meantime, I'm convinced it should be ok to just limit the error
indicators to 50 or 100.


Regards,
Enrico

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090128/850227d0/attachment.pgp>