Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> writes: > 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.
I've never been in favor of an incompatible change not backed up by an automatic conversion program. But that's just me. I'm not looking to dump fvwm2. It works too well for me. -- Dan Espen
