Hi,
I have been using fvwm for a while and I think that this idea of
changing the config format is ill thought out and silly. Why does this
need changing now after all these years? I can't see how you expect a
script to convert to this new format easily - its a very lofty goal.
Don't do this at a
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:14PM +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
is <<< a perlism, or a typo for more customary << ?
In shell, <<< is a here-string.
I wasn't aware of the distinction between here-documents and here-strings
(I had to check https://en
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:14PM +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> is <<< a perlism, or a typo for more customary << ?
In shell, <<< is a here-string. But since the comparison we're talking about
isn't the same, it's likely a typo. The semantic meaning for a configuration
file has no bearing on
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:26:08AM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote:
I use FvwmPerl quite a bit ...
Never used FvwmPerl nor perl, just a couple of FvwmScript, but I know here
documents from shell scripting where I use them a lot.
+ I SendToMo
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:23:41AM -0400, Donald R Laster Jr wrote:
>
> When it comes to functions the cleaner format might be to use a variant of
> the Bourne/Bash/"C" format such as this:
I don't think so. At best you're going to get a heredoc to slurp up multiple
lines. The point here is th
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:26:08AM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote:
> One thing I wouldn't mind added is "here documents". I use FvwmPerl
> quite a bit and my config is full of things like
>
> + I SendToModule perlwops eval \
> my ($NEWX, $WIN) = (0, undef); \
> foreach $WIN (@b
When it comes to functions the cleaner format might be to use a variant of the
Bourne/Bash/"C" format such as this:
function name(arg1, arg2, ... argN)
{
return(defaults to 0 if not specified)
}
White space would be irrelevant, whether tabs or spaces are used.
