Re: Elaborate compile-time error messages (was: GNAT Stream Read ...)

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <771agj$rmc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewar@gnat.com writes:
> In article <1999Jan6.072356.1@eisner>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
>> In article <76uv4j$njr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dewar@gnat.com writes:
>>
>> That certainly is a high quality error message.  I am
>> curious as to why it is not the default.  Is there some
>> set of programmers who get really mad at having the
>> compiler be smarter than they are about the
>> nature of a problem.
> 
> First, to be clear, the *error messages* are exactly the
> same in default mode, and the error messages give column
> numbers. The difference is in printing out the source line,
> and flagging the column of the error. Most programmers do
> NOT want this as the default, and note in particular that
> when you are using an editor that is integrated with the
> compiler, e.g. EMACS, the verbosity of -gnatv just gets in
> the way and is unhelpful.

Saying that the source quotation is not part of the error
message seems a bit pedantic, perhaps due to specialized
meanings within the ACT shop.

At any rate, the idea that GNAT defaults to presuming a
tightly coupled editor makes a lot of sense, as that is
the environment recommended to those who have no reason
to choose otherwise.

Larry Kilgallen