Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:09:49PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On 2 September 2014 23:04, Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de wrote: Can you write the missing sub-rule for the Test command (the one that has to do with infostore)? Will do in the next half-hour or so. Great. This is the last missing piece of the conditional commands. I'm eager to get over with the basic parsing description draft so I can try some practical things. :-) Dominik, Are we OK to lay a steak in the ground, and for me to merge document-parsing to master? Then we can consider what to do next, etc? We can always continue fleshing this out over time, etc. Kindly, -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:39:39PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:09:49PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On 2 September 2014 23:04, Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de wrote: Can you write the missing sub-rule for the Test command (the one that has to do with infostore)? Will do in the next half-hour or so. Great. This is the last missing piece of the conditional commands. I'm eager to get over with the basic parsing description draft so I can try some practical things. :-) Are we OK to lay a steak in the ground, and for me to merge document-parsing to master? I don't really care whether it's in the master or elsewhere. Then we can consider what to do next, etc? I'd like to gather some experience with splitting functions into interface and implementation before tackling the real parser. We can always continue fleshing this out over time, etc. Yes. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: Just found this comment in CMD_Test: /* * unfortunately, GetNextSimpleOption is * * broken, does not accept quoted empty */ Actually, GetNextSimpleOption() is _not_ broken. The parsing library guarantees never to return empty tokens. This is a feature, albeit a questionable one. The CVS command you are looking for is annotate. 1.107 (migo 13-Aug-05): /* unfortunately, GetNextSimpleOption is Could be that it was broken when the comment was written. -- Dan Espen
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:55:43PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:00:13PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:55:43PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Thenks. Can you write the missing sub-rule for the Test command (the one that has to do with infostore)? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:48:05PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: Just found this comment in CMD_Test: /* * unfortunately, GetNextSimpleOption is * * broken, does not accept quoted empty */ Actually, GetNextSimpleOption() is _not_ broken. The parsing library guarantees never to return empty tokens. This is a feature, albeit a questionable one. The CVS command you are looking for is annotate. 1.107 (migo 13-Aug-05): /* unfortunately, GetNextSimpleOption is Well, I thought it might be worhtwhile to mention it in public while we're working on the parser anyway. Could be that it was broken when the comment was written. No, it has always been this way. This guarantee is used in many places where parsing is done, and when I coded GetNextSimpleOption() this was in there from the start (because it simply uses the same underlying implementation of the tokenisation functions as the rest of the parsing library). By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. -- Dan Espen
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:09:49PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On 2 September 2014 23:04, Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de wrote: Can you write the missing sub-rule for the Test command (the one that has to do with infostore)? Will do in the next half-hour or so. Great. This is the last missing piece of the conditional commands. I'm eager to get over with the basic parsing description draft so I can try some practical things. :-) Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:11:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. I don't mind. But I certainly _dislike_ the ridiculous tokens we have now in terms of w.foo, i.foo, etc., etc. I'd much rather we deferred that part until much later on, as I've a few notes regarding expansion versus information coming out of fvwm (and how that's stored in fvwm, etc.) -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. We have SetEnv. Does SetVar work for you? All of 2.6 is stable. -- Dan Espen
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org writes: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:11:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. I don't mind. But I certainly _dislike_ the ridiculous tokens we have now in terms of w.foo, i.foo, etc., etc. I'd much rather we deferred that part until much later on, as I've a few notes regarding expansion versus information coming out of fvwm (and how that's stored in fvwm, etc.) Just kibitzing here, but when I do re-factoring, I like to start with consistent names. I could see how changing names might cause git - cvs issues. -- Dan Espen
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:15:44PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:11:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. I don't mind. But I certainly _dislike_ the ridiculous tokens we have now in terms of w.foo, i.foo, etc., etc. Agreed. I'd much rather we deferred that part until much later on, as I've a few notes regarding expansion versus information coming out of fvwm (and how that's stored in fvwm, etc.) Yes, of course. Expansion is a terrible mess right now and needs to be cleaned up, and that will require much thought and planning. I'd prefer to either make expansion much more similar to what shells do (i.e. make the general syntax more shell-like) *or* to do something completely different that does not interfere as much with the parsing of the underlying shell (maybe easier to understand and use). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Dominik Vogt dominik.v...@gmx.de writes: By the way, does anybody know what this infostore stuff is about? Thomas does, but just in case he doesn't find his own email... https://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02706.html Seems reasonable, but I suggest, from infostore.h: MetaInfo *new_metainfo(void); void insert_metainfo(char *, char *); char *get_metainfo_value(const char *); void print_infostore(void); the new, insert and get functions should all use the word infostore, not metainfo. Hm, is this in a stable release already? I find the syntax a bit clumsy (the name is not very intuitive, and $[infostore] is so much to type), and if while we're rewriting the parser we might clean that up as well. We have SetEnv. Does SetVar work for you? Of course, but it's closely related to parsing and command line expansion. All of 2.6 is stable. But 2.6.6 is not released. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:22:28PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: I don't mind. But I certainly _dislike_ the ridiculous tokens we have now in terms of w.foo, i.foo, etc., etc. I'd much rather we deferred that part until much later on, as I've a few notes regarding expansion versus information coming out of fvwm (and how that's stored in fvwm, etc.) Just kibitzing here, but when I do re-factoring, I like to start with consistent names. I could see how changing names might cause git - cvs issues. That's actually something I'd like to move as far into the future as possible. I'd rather start with all the changes that would not prevent to push fixes in fvwm to the new code. But eventually it will happen. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: GetNextSimpleOption is broken
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: Great. This is the last missing piece of the conditional commands. I'm eager to get over with the basic parsing description draft so I can try some practical things. :-) Done. Heh, I've sneakily been starting a few things, but left it... -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
