Re: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-25 Thread Werner Scheinast
Hallo, I have a very fancy setup with nested function definitions. Parts of my ".fvwm2rc" look like this: AddToFunc BCopy I (...) + I Pick AddToFunc $0 I WindowId $[w.id] (State 2) [*] $[1-] + I + I Next (!State 4) Move + I (...) So, I dynamically define complex functions during user

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread gi1242+fvwm
One thing I wouldn't mind added is "here documents". I use FvwmPerl quite a bit and my config is full of things like + I SendToModule perlwops eval \ my ($NEWX, $WIN) = (0, undef); \ foreach $WIN (@b) { \ $NEWX = $WIN->{x}+$WIN->{width} \ ... (10 more

Fwd: Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread t.funk
Hi, Dan Espen wrote: Thomas Adam writes: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:44:25PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: Yes. I tried to bring up the subject of readability. OK. Specifically? New vs. Old: Colorset -n1 -b red -f red Colorset 1 bg red, fg red One

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Stephen Dennison
> > You can find the draft at: > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/new-config-format/ > docs/NEW-CONFIG.md > > I read through the draft a bit, below are my questions/comments. For parsing compatibility, perhaps a special command, comment, or token to indicate which format is being used so

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Thomas Adam
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:50:31PM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > > Yes, yes, conversion script(s). There'll be something to ensure > > people can start from a known point and potentially not have to learn > > anything new

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread gi1242+fvwm
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > Yes, yes, conversion script(s). There'll be something to ensure > people can start from a known point and potentially not have to learn > anything new as well if they don't want to. Ignorance through > continuity has benefits...

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Thomas Adam
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:16:46PM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0700, elliot s wrote: > > > If a conversion script can convert the current rc file to a code > > friendly format, can a front end parser do that instead, so that we > > keep the current

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread gi1242+fvwm
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0700, elliot s wrote: > If a conversion script can convert the current rc file to a code > friendly format, can a front end parser do that instead, so that we > keep the current user friendly format? Usually conversion scripts aren't perfect, so I don't know

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread elliot s
If a conversion script can convert the current rc file to a code friendly format, can a front end parser do that instead, so that we keep the current user friendly format?

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Dan Espen
Thomas Adam writes: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 12:57 Ron Tapia wrote: >> What are the >> shortcomings of the current configuration format that the new format >> addresses? > > Have another read of that document, Ron. FVWM is completely governed > by how it reads

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Thomas Adam
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 12:57 Ron Tapia wrote: > What are the > shortcomings of the current configuration format that the new format > addresses? Have another read of that document, Ron. FVWM is completely governed by how it reads in commands, and hence at the moment, each command

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Ron Tapia
com> Cc: f...@fvwm.org, fvwm-workers@fvwm.org Subject: Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:38:04 +0200 Bert Geens wrote: Hello fellow Fvwm users, Thomas has started working on a draft for a new configuration format that should fix some of the shortcomings of the c

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Tom Horsley
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:38:04 +0200 Bert Geens wrote: > Hello fellow Fvwm users, > > Thomas has started working on a draft for a new configuration format > that should fix some of the shortcomings of the current one. There are no shortcomings in the current format :-). It has the overwhelmingly

[Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Bert Geens
Hello fellow Fvwm users, Thomas has started working on a draft for a new configuration format that should fix some of the shortcomings of the current one. You can find the draft at: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/new-config-format/docs/NEW-CONFIG.md Be aware that this is still very