On 2/9/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:32:44PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > > On 2/9/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:05:14PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > > > I've committed the patch to CVS (and removed the FARGS macro from > > > FvwmConsole). For further patches, please always add a list of > > > modified functions to the ChangeLog after the name of the .c file. > > > This simplifies maintenance enormously. > > > > > > > Here goes a second patch. > > > > I've added the list of modified functions after the file name, except > > for the main function. I followed the style of some of your entries in > > the changelogs, hope I've done it ok. > > Actually, its not my personal style but what xemacs (and emacs?) > generate when you move the cursor into a function and the press > ctrl-x 4 a. (Unfortunately more recent versions of xemacs changed > the style of the function list which makes it more difficult to > grep through it. > > > As you said once, the command line syntax isn't going to change that > > much, even for 3.0. But even so, some coding styles make it difficult > > to use properly the ParseModuleArgs (or functions alike) regarding the > > module aliases. I wonder if there could be fixed a standard for > > aliases. I mean a true standard that modules using aliases should > > follow. The argv[6] rule would be ok, but it would break some config > > files. Obviosly some kind of wrapper could be used to avoid those > > breakings, like in FvwmRearrange. I wonder what you think about this. > > The one problem with that approach is that such a change would > break all third-party modules. >
Hum, you're right. What about making the change only for official modules, those using Module.h? I don't know if third party modules use Module.h, but they will break anyway if that file changes.. > > Without a proper standard, some modules using ParseModuleArgs won't be > > as clean as they should be. I'm skipping them for now, wainting for a > > definite solution. Cheers Renato
