Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 19 May 2003 22:38:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > > > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle". > > > > Maybe I'm missing something. > > I never completely understood all the ins and outs of the windowstyle > > proposal. Why isn't this: > > > > Style [ id=$[w.id] ] .... > > This is the syntax I prefered some time ago too, actually: > > Style (Id $[w.id]) ... > > But now I think it is relatively bad compared to simply "WindowStyle ...", > because it allows to pass incorrect parameters (unexisting window ids) > and because I think it is ugly and redundant for commands and functions > that by definition should work on the window context to receive window id > as a parameter. > > Think about "WindowStyle Sticky" as equivalent of "Stick", both should > work on the window context, it is just intuitive.
I guess. It could also be: Style [] ... I think econimizing our commands makes some sense. Otherwise, explaining the command will be a bit clumsy. Does this make sense: WindowStyle: This is just like the Style command and takes the same options, except it applies to the "context" window. On the other hand: Style [xxxx] The xxxx matches a window on name,class, or resource. If omitted, it matches the "context" window. So, do you think it makes more sense if the id is omitted? -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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]
