On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:32:11AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > I haven't examined mvwm all that closely.
At the moment, mvwm is mostly fvwm with a lot of old and obscure features removed and some changes of repository layout. > I had assumed that the mvwm work would eventually fold back into Fvwm. I think Thomas has something more radical in mind, either forking off permanently, or replacing fvwm2 with fvwm3 eventually. > I read the parsing write up. > My guess is that you are trying to develop a table driven parser > for all (or most) fvwm commands? That definitely must be one goal of the syntax rewrite. > I just did something similar for a work project. > But I didn't have a lifetime, so I just implemented the table > driven parser for the commands I was dealing with at the time. > Since then I've gone back and added a few more commands. Well, at the moment it's too early to think about how a new parser should look like. First we need to find out what the current fvwm needs from a parser. Than we can think about replacing commands and streamlining the syntax. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
