Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:32:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0700, elliot s wrote: > > > take another look at the document, since it tells you how functions could > > > be specified. > > > > I missed seeing the example, but it was as i thought. > > A function is specified all on one line, which means adding \ on all > > but last line, > > which means having to make sure \ is on all but last line. > > A source of copy/paste/delete errors while working on a function. > > No different to how things are now, so it's not anything worth mentioning, > really. > > -- Thomas Adam > Is it worth considering moving away from line-based processing for entities like functions? Changing the example in the document to something like: Function -n func_name i:DoImmediate, c:DoClick, i:DoImmediate, i:TestRc (NoMatch) Break, h:DoHold EndFunction Just a thought. Wayne
Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:27:47PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:20:50PM -0400, lists-f...@useunix.net wrote: > > Is it worth considering moving away from line-based processing for > > entities like functions? > > > > Changing the example in the document to something like: > > > > Function -n func_name > > i:DoImmediate, > > c:DoClick, > > i:DoImmediate, > > i:TestRc (NoMatch) Break, > > h:DoHold > > EndFunction > > > > Just a thought. > > That's no different to the suggestion in the document, other than you've > "regressed" back to what FVWM1.X used to do. The "EndFunction" part doesn't > add anything. > > It's only "block" based because that's what we have now, and I see no reason > why we need to retain that right now. > > -- Thomas Adam > Is it different as in it gets rid of the annoying '\' characters that need to be at the end of every line. Unless you are saying that they aren't necessary? Wayne
Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:37:41PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:38:27PM -0400, lists-f...@useunix.net wrote:
> > Is it different as in it gets rid of the annoying '\' characters that
> > need to be at the end of every line. Unless you are saying that they
> > aren't necessary?
>
> They're continuation markers. Lots of programs honour those when reading in
> files, as does FVWM at present, so this isn't anything new, and the point of
> using them is to allow people to improve readability.
>
> -- Thomas Adam
>
Understood.
In my experience they only serve to enhance readability when the
language processor doesn't handle processing a group of lines using
block delimiters.
BlockA \
line1, \
line2, \
line3, \
line4
Is less visually appealing and can be more difficult locate errors than
BlockB {
line1,
line2,
line3,
line4
}
Wayne
