Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread John Wiggins
The python method has some serious defficiencies when applied to input files like .fvwmrc2, i.e. white space you cannot see (space vs tab) matters and cause read errors that drive you crazy… IMO, the BlockB { line1, line2, line3_and_white_

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread elliot s
<< BlockA \ line1, \ line2, \ line3, \ line4 Is less visually appealing and can be more difficult locate errors than BlockB { line1, line2, line3, line4 } >> There's the python method of blockingusing indentation. WY

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
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 necess

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
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 wh

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
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:

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
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, >

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
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

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
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 li

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread elliot s
> 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 sour

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Lucio Chiappetti
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote: Secondly, take another look at the document, since it tells you how functions could be specified. "the document", if I'm reading the right one, is just a very short sketch (3-4 pages) with some examples ... compared to the much longer man pages I studi

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:31:34PM -0700, elliot s wrote: > What would be an example of what a user defined function looks like? > That's where most of the "needs easy reading and editing" happens. > Also, i would have a space between option and value. > So -f red, not -fred (who's fred, and what