Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
Ethan Raynor writes: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen wrote: >> Yes, a number of people wanted git. >> No point in arguing against that. >> It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality. > > But I can't recall when on the fvwm lists the pros and cons of moving. > I know that github is considered the place to be - but I've also had > some nasty encounters with it when things go bad - and other places > like bitbucket have greater resiliance - not to mention guaranteed > backups!! Sounds to me like you are not subscribed to fvwm-workers. If you care about things like the repository, you should subscribe. >> You've ruined your point about the config change by bringing in >> a bunch of irrelevant stuff. > > Not exactly, Dan. The point i'm putting across to thomas and others is > the perception of the changes - they come out of no where with any > warning. That can be a bad thing Nope. Read the various TODO files. Major parser change has been on the list a long time. In fact Thomas was not the major maintainer at the time. I'd like to see improvements in the way parsing is done inside fvwm. There is so much parsing code that does the same basic thing. A table driven approach would be a big improvement. If the command syntax has to change to get there, I'd like to understand why. -- Dan Espen
Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen wrote: > Yes, a number of people wanted git. > No point in arguing against that. > It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality. But I can't recall when on the fvwm lists the pros and cons of moving. I know that github is considered the place to be - but I've also had some nasty encounters with it when things go bad - and other places like bitbucket have greater resiliance - not to mention guaranteed backups!! > You've ruined your point about the config change by bringing in > a bunch of irrelevant stuff. Not exactly, Dan. The point i'm putting across to thomas and others is the perception of the changes - they come out of no where with any warning. That can be a bad thing Ethan
Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
Ethan Raynor writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti > wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:14PM +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote: is <<< a perlism, or a typo for more customary << ? >>> >>> >>> In shell, <<< is a here-string. >> >> >> I wasn't aware of the distinction between here-documents and here-strings (I >> had to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_document), I've always used >> only the former. >> Does this apply to ANY occurrences which in your new scheme will use the backslash like the old AddToFunc followed by lots of + I lines ? >>> >>> >>> Yes. > > I think this is a mistake. I've read through the doc you've put out > twice, and i cannot see any compelling reason to change things. For my > purposes, the expressiveness of what's there now is an asset we should > retain - look at your proposal... > > function -n myfunc < i:athing > EOF > > what if myfunc didn't do 'athing' properly? how is that handled? > > i don't feel as though you're thinking about this properly. > > It's also a concern that we have seen: > > o fvwm stale for quite some time Fvwm is stable, not stale. > o fvwm forked to mvwm (what happened there)? A good thing that the name change hasn't occurred. > o fvwm moved to github - why? no one asked for that Yes, a number of people wanted git. No point in arguing against that. It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality. > o fvwm website redesigned - no one asked for that The web site changed when we moved to github of necessity. PHP wasn't available. > If all these werent enough, now we've got a change of config to contend with? > > I am not pleased. You've ruined your point about the config change by bringing in a bunch of irrelevant stuff. -- Dan Espen
Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:14PM +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote: >>> >>> is <<< a perlism, or a typo for more customary << ? >> >> >> In shell, <<< is a here-string. > > > I wasn't aware of the distinction between here-documents and here-strings (I > had to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_document), I've always used > only the former. > >>> Does this apply to ANY occurrences which in your new scheme will use the >>> backslash like the old AddToFunc followed by lots of + I lines ? >> >> >> Yes. I think this is a mistake. I've read through the doc you've put out twice, and i cannot see any compelling reason to change things. For my purposes, the expressiveness of what's there now is an asset we should retain - look at your proposal... function -n myfunc <
Re: FVWM: screenshot
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:44:13AM -0600, Bob Crochelt wrote: > Hi: > I'm a user, and have been since RedHat 5.1 abouot 18 years ago. I got into > linux because of the Micro$oft blue screen of death. I hope the FVWM config > files don't change too much. I know there havent been any recent screen > shots on the web page, but I thought I'd send one along. nothing fancy, > just Rox pinboard and buttons. Hope you post it. Either way, thanks for > the great wm. Bob Crochelt Thanks, added it to the website. -- Thomas Adam
