On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 07:50:51PM -0400, Donald R Laster Jr wrote:
>
> As I read the comments related to the configuration file parsing maybe the
> initial focus should be on unifying the parsing code itself into a single
> common set of functions or library package first. As I understand it, fr
As I read the comments related to the configuration file parsing maybe the
initial focus should be on unifying the parsing code itself into a single
common set of functions or library package first. As I understand it, from the
reading the posts on this subject, many of the modules have their
Ethan Raynor writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Sounds to me like you are not subscribed to fvwm-workers.
>> If you care about things like the repository, you should subscribe.
>
> ok - I will do this. How busy is the list?
Not very, but when the conversation turns
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Sounds to me like you are not subscribed to fvwm-workers.
> If you care about things like the repository, you should subscribe.
ok - I will do this. How busy is the list?
> Read the various TODO files.
The only one I can see is this one -
htt
Ethan Raynor writes:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Yes, a number of people wanted git.
>> No point in arguing against that.
>> It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality.
>
> But I can't recall when on the fvwm lists the pros and cons of moving.
> I know that
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Yes, a number of people wanted git.
> No point in arguing against that.
> It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality.
But I can't recall when on the fvwm lists the pros and cons of moving.
I know that github is considered the place to
Ethan Raynor writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti
> wrote:
>> 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-
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti
wrote:
> 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
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.
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_
<<
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
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
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
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:
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,
>
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
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
> 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
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
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
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's he doing in my rc file?)
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:03:47PM -0400, Stephen Dennison wrote:
> >
> > You can find the draft at:
> > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/new-config-format/
> > docs/NEW-CONFIG.md
> >
> >
> I read through the draft a bit, below are my questions/comments.
>
> For parsing compatibility, perha
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:44:25PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Yes.
>>
>> I tried to bring up the subject of readability.
>
> OK. Specifically?
New vs. Old:
Colorset -n1 -b red -f red
Colorset 1 bg red, fg red
One is easy to read, write, and remember.
The other isn't.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:44:25PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I tried to bring up the subject of readability.
OK. Specifically?
-- Thomas Adam
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:16:46PM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0700, elliot s wrote:
>>
>> > If a conversion script can convert the current rc file to a code
>> > friendly format, can a front end parser do that instead, so that
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 12:57 Ron Tapia wrote:
> What are the
> shortcomings of the current configuration format that the new format
> addresses?
Have another read of that document, Ron. FVWM is completely governed
by how it reads in commands, and hence at the moment, each command is
responsible
32 matches
Mail list logo
