On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:15:36AM +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > If you ask me, I would place a real interpreter language, tcl is fine.
> > But this does not seem possible. This would require an absolutely new
> > syntax. I am ready to rewrite hundreds of kilobytes of fvwm-themes
> > configs, but I fear that some others have problems to rewrite their.
>
> We should think long and hard before putting anything into Fvwm that
> would preclude us from adding a real interpreter later. What I mean is
> that the only problematic commands that Fvwm has so far is "*", "+",
> "function" and "module". If we add "if", "then", "else", "{" and "}"
> then we could have much worse problems later. I'm not saying no to this
> just be careful about the choice of names. I think { and } should be
> avoided because they will be used by a real interpreter. Is it a big
> problem to have to put multiline blocks into seperate functions so that
> the if-else construct takes only one command (short form)?
Perhaps we should first agree on the feature we want to provide.
Currently, the solutions for even the most simple if-else problems
is PipeRead. This is a bit uncomfortable because even very simple
things require PipeRead. I'd be content to have a solution for
these problems:
1) If a certain window exists, kill it; if not, start it.
2) If a window is off screen or iconified, make it visible;
if not, iconify it.
...
For more complex problems we would still say: use PipeRead.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
