Join GitHub today
Require :mode for all syntax checkers #1071
Follow up of #961: We've got no built-in syntax checkers without
Should we need a more generic system I think we should rather take the route of supporting derived modes. Even a hypothetical ispell checker could probably not support all modes: There are fundamental differences between programming languages and text and likely you'll need to syntax checkers for these anyway.
This pull request is still WIP (missing some tests and doc updates), but I'm opening it anyway for discussion.
I ran a quick experiment and downloaded all packages whose name contained "flycheck". All of them had a
(reported at alexmurray/flycheck-cstyle#2)
LGTM. IIRC buttercup has a feature to intercept function calls that could be used instead of cl-letf, but I don't think it would make a difference here :)
I like this new architecture. If a checkers want more mores, we could always introduce a different
Sep 12, 2016
Generally, if you're maintaining extensions to Flycheck outside of our organisation we expect you to follow our development process to be notified about breaking changes.
However we offer to move Flycheck extensions into the Flycheck organisation—for extensions and checkers in our org we notify maintainers of breaking changes and make necessary changes to restore compatibility.
@radupopescu Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you—it was a stupid remark of mine
If you've got an extension to move into Flycheck please feel free to ping us, either with an issue or on our gitter channel and we'll help you with moving the extension into our Org