Re: Flymake backends

[Philip Kaludercic]

Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes:

> Hi:
>
> I have been using flymake instead of flycheck.
>
> Without any configuration I found that flymake does not show any issue;
> while flycheck shows multiple corrections. That's why flycheck contains
> a simpler interface to implement basic backends and consequently it has
> many buildt-in backends (i.e. cppcheck, gfortran etc).
>
> The question is:
>
> 1) Is there any effort around to improve the flymake api to add
> backends in a simpler way?

There has been an attempt at abstracting over the current API in this
project: https://github.com/mohkale/flymake-collection

> Because there are multiple functions the flymake code to simplify common
> tasks, but they are intended for private use cases.
>
> It may simplify integration with other build systems like ninja or
> cmake.
>
> So far something like flymake-quickdef, may help...
>
> 2) Is it desirable to add built-in backends to flymake for common/simple
> tools generally available like cppcheck, flake and so on... to improve
> the default experience and minimize configuration?

I think that is of interest.  In Emacs 29 shellcheck was added for
instance, and I don't see why other systems shouldn't be supported
either (setting aside legal issues).

> Best,
> Ergus