On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 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?
Done. It's in the TODO for now.
-- Thomas Adam
--
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
