Ethan Raynor <ethanrayno...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti > <lu...@lambrate.inaf.it> 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 <<EOF > 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
