Dominik Vogt wrote: > > Okay, it took me quite some hours to figure this out: It's *not* > a problem with fvwm. Although you can't see it, the application > window *is* mapped. It's just that tk thinks it is not visible > and thus does not draw anything into it. I couldn't find > anything that fvwm is doing wrong. Actually, I couldn't even > find any difference in the requests that wish sends to fvwm - > regardless if the deiconify line is in the code or not. I think > there must be a bug in wish. >
Could it be the case,that fvwm>2.2.5 delivers events to "wish" as a different type. The update command distinguishes between all events (no parameter) and idle callbacks (parameter idletasks). Using no parameter for the update there are no problems (if I remember correctly), but that aim't no the way to go. Seems like good old 2.2.5 delivers events the do get processed as idle callbacks, whereas all follow versions don't. I have to take a look at the tcl sources to get an idea, which event's are put into which category. -- Gerhard Hintermayer http://www.inode.at/g.hintermayer -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
