Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

g:neomake_make_modified is not compatible with all checkers #73

Closed
Neki opened this issue Mar 29, 2015 · 2 comments · Fixed by #84
Closed

g:neomake_make_modified is not compatible with all checkers #73

Neki opened this issue Mar 29, 2015 · 2 comments · Fixed by #84
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@Neki
Copy link
Contributor

Neki commented Mar 29, 2015

In some languages, the file name (and directory structure) is significant. For instance, Java requires the class "org.company.MyClass" to be defined in a file at org/company/MyClass.java. The same goes for Haskell (ghc-mod will refuse to check a file whose name does not end in .hs or .lhs, and I am pretty sure that messing with the Haskell naming conventions will break some tools), Python, and probably a lot of other languages.

When g:neomake_make_modified is set to 1, the name of the file that is actually checked does not (and can not) follow these rules, and thus the "run make on modified buffers" feature will simply not work. I verified this with the ghc-mod checker for Haskell, that simply outputs to stderr ghc-mod: target src/Test.hs.1605.neomake.tmp is not a module name or a source file.

I can foresee other sources of issues: checkers that can only check a whole project at once, issues if :Neomake and :Neomake! were to be run concurrently...

I see two options:

  • dropping this feature altogether (the above is the reason why Syntastic does not support it, see This fixes #80 - make it work on remote files vim-syntastic/syntastic#1034 for instance). This is my personal preference, I think this feature is too much trouble for little benefit.
  • have checkers explicitly declare that they support this feature, which is still feasible at this point since there are not a lot of checkers.

Thoughts ?

@Neki Neki added the bug label Mar 29, 2015
@benekastah
Copy link
Collaborator

I think dropping the feature is probably the best course, too. @dpavlic asked for this feature in #28. Are you still using this feature?

@blueyed
Copy link
Member

blueyed commented Mar 6, 2017

See #1057 for bringing it back.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants