Change syntax errors/warnings to use FILE:LINE format

[fingolfin]

This changes syntax errors and warnings to print slightly differently. Before:

gap> Read("test.g");
Syntax error: expression expected in test.g line 1
*1;
^

After:

gap> Read("test.g");
Syntax error: expression expected in test.g:1
*1;
^
gap>

The primary reason I'd like to see that is selfish: Such strings are recognized by my terminal, and I can Cmd-click them to open an editor for that file, at the correct line.

This format also matches the output of gcc and clang when it comes to errors:

~/Projekte/GAP/gap.github (git:mh/syntax-error-lines)$ clang test.c
test.c:1:2: error: expected identifier or '('
*1;
 ^
1 error generated.
~/Projekte/GAP/gap.github (git:mh/syntax-error-lines)$ gcc-5 test.c
test.c:1:2: error: expected identifier or ‘(’ before numeric constant
 *1;
  ^

I realize that might be a somewhat bizarre reason, but I thought I could at least try to convince you this is useful ;-).

Of course, there is a the potential drawback that end users may not understand the new output.

[olexandr-konovalov]

+1

[olexandr-konovalov]

No semicolon in this line - that's what causing Travis tests to fail. Please fix it and I suggest to merge it - no objections expressed during three weeks.

[markuspf]

I'd merge this, but tests are failing :/

[olexandr-konovalov]

@markuspf someone just to check systematically and update error messages included in tests, eg

Syntax error: Only two dots in a range in stream line 1

should be

Syntax error: Only two dots in a range in stream:1

[markuspf]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:19:46AM -0800, Alexander Konovalov wrote:

@markuspf someone just to check systematically and update error messages
included in the test, eg

The operative words being "someone" and "just".

[fingolfin]

I just saw this message, and wanted to see what errors there are, and look into resolving them. But I see this has now been merged anyway? I am confused?!

[fingolfin]

Aha, it seems @markuspf took care of that in 96c590a -- thank you!

[markuspf]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:25:36AM -0800, Max Horn wrote:

Aha, it seems @markuspf took care of that in 96c590a -- thank you!

Yeah, I wouldn't merge this with the errors still present, and figured that a
quick sed is better than this discussion going on further ;)