On 07 Jan 2003 06:51:41 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:18:08PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > On 22:50 06 Jan 2003, Marcus Lundblad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | My plan is to remove the unnessesay > > | "Closable","Maximizable","Iconifiable" and "AllowMaximizeFixedSize" > > | since they correspond to "!" variants of > > | "Unclosable","Unmaximizable","Uniconifiable" and > > | "DisallowMaximizeFixedSize" > > | > > | Does it make sence to let the non-default styles be the only ones, and > > | have the opposite styles as the default? > > | > > | I guess this should be done for all styles. But I guess this will be done > > | for 3.0, since it breaks backwards compatablility. > > | > > | Also, I might add a "DisallowIconifyFixedSize" to complement > > | "DisallowMaximize" fixed size. But I guess this would also call for a > > | "DisallowShadeFizedSize". > > > > Could I cast a vote for NOT doing it this way? > > > > You should keep "Closable" and discard "Unclosable", using "!Closable" > > and so forth. All these attributes should be positive statements. > > > > Likewise there shouldn't be any "Disallow*" options, just Allow* > > and !Allow*. > > > > This issue is entirely separate from what the defaults are. > > I agree 100%.
The weak side of this is that a user has no any indication of what is the normal window behaviour. Other than this I have no problem to name options regardless of their default. Regards, Mikhael. -- 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]
