Just pushed a new version of the Abnf. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10:57PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 03:20:09PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> writes: > > I might take the blame for other mis-designed things, but > > as far as I remember, that goes way back. I think the issue was those > > pretty long commands "AddToFunc", etc. But the "+" sign is just broken. > > On the other hand, I've never seen it cause a real problem. > > I think Fvwm just scoops up commands so fast that it's unlikely that > > there will be a conflict. > > Probably because nobody uses dynamic menus much. When fvwm reads > a file or PipeRead input, it does not do anything in between, but > input from modules cound trigger that. Anyway, it would be nice > to have a clean scripting engine that can handle this correctly. > You'd just have to store a separate '+' context for each source > from which fvwm reads commands. > > > It would be nice if Fvwm reported where it found an error > > (line 40 .fvwm/config) which would make the parser aware > > of where commands are coming from and provide a way to fix > > this. Of course sometimes it would be "FvwmAnimate PID 1234, > > 20th command". > > Good idea. We should write that down somewhere.
Thomas, could you put this information somewhere? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
