Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 18:38, Thomas Funk <t.f...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Thomas Adam made some comments about using FvwmPerl. Is that resolved?
> No -- and as such, until it starts to use perllib and/or FvwmPerl,
> it's not ready. There is *no* reason why we wouldn't dog-food our own
> implementation of interfacing to FVWM, other than the individual
> developer concerned didn't understand it. We _have_ a framework to do
> all of the functionality the code currently uses; it's high-time we
> use it.
>> I've fixed all what Thomas suggested except the part to do the complete
>> stuff with the perllib framework. That needs a little bit more time.
> But that's the entirety of this file, as far as I am concerned. A
> pretty important part, too.
>> I hope it is ok for Thomas that you want to commit it because it's only
>> an interim solution.
> Until this is fixed, I would rather this wasn't put in CVS at all. As
> I've mentioned my time is limited, but if I have to roll up my sleeves
> and take responsibility for this, I don't mind. I'd rather not
> though, but either way, someone should let me know if I have to.
> -- Thomas Adam
I would first like to say that it takes some time to understand your
writing. I am not a native English, so please forgive me if I haven't
understood it completely/correctly.
I am willing to do the job of rewriting it but I need help. If you could
take some of your spare time to give me hints and answer questions fairly
would be fine.
What I want to say is, that i want an open, honest and constructive
discussion about the programming and functionality of the module and not
"RTFM" - I do this every time before I asking.
So if you're willing to be a "mentor" in a sense I am ready to