On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById. > > > StyleById applies styles to specific windows: > > > > > > Pick Style $[w.id] NoTitle, !Borders > > > > > > DestroyStyleById can destroy such a style. > > > > > > The implementation solve the pbs with the patch send by Craig Milo Rogers > > > a few weeks ago: > > > - When a window is "destroyed" the associated StyleById is destroyed > > > too (if not a new window can have the same id and the old style by > > > id is applied). > > > - No more ambiguity with the Style cmd as we have a new cmd. > > > > > > I see no strong reason against this patch, but (as we are under > > > feature freeze) a vote against it. Any one? > > > > Adding the patch to 2.5.x is out of the question (feature freeze). > > During 2.3.x we added new features during feature freeze. Of course > adding a new feature should lead to discussion and voting. But I do > not think that we _must_ not add some. During development period we > may, for various reasons, postpone/forget/miss certain stuff. Then, > during feature freeze we can "fix" these stuff.
I am trying to stabilise fvwm and patches of this dimension have the potential to throw us back for months. > > Apart from that, this topic requires much more thought. We don't > > want to make an ad-hoc syntax now, find out later that it does not > > work with all the other Style related enhancements and the > > redesign exevrything from scratch. > > Oh yes. For me, these commands are just _workaround_ commands: This > feature is important and it is easy to get it so why we should live > without it? > Because, we have an ambitious project "the WindowStyle command" which > leads to "Conditional Style"? See my reply to Mikhael's post. If you prefer a neverending beta status, we can not work on the same project. > Well, with the current FVWM development logic we will have to wait 3 > years to get something that can do what StyleById can do now Everybody is welcome to help solving the problems that stand between 2.5.6 and 2.6.0. > (and I am > optimist ... I do not think that we should start a > discussion on FVWM future now). Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- 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]
