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

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 9ed103: Config: updates

2016-09-19 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 9ed103e8ab2389b2a874a2a7e7df97e34ca2c4a7 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/9ed103e8ab2389b2a874a2a7e7df97e34ca2c4a7 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-19 (Mon, 19 Sep

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 22b06e: Config: updates

2016-09-19 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 22b06e3f23ad268a8b89cce77413a41a1026f338 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/22b06e3f23ad268a8b89cce77413a41a1026f338 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-19 (Mon, 19 Sep

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

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 0d7d48: Config: updates

2016-09-19 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 0d7d4822073bc92bbebd7785774514e8fe891168 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/0d7d4822073bc92bbebd7785774514e8fe891168 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-19 (Mon, 19 Sep

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-19 Thread Ron Tapia
Hi, I have to agree. Part of the reason is that there is not a lot of FVWM development is that it does what it does very well and has not needed a lot of change. I know that I've heard people asking for support for 3D effects, but I've never heard a complaint about the configuration format.

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

[fvwmorg/fvwm] ab6010: Config: updates

2016-09-19 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: ab6010c449c28dc81c8ab5e6c52ad97026708281 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/ab6010c449c28dc81c8ab5e6c52ad97026708281 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-19 (Mon, 19 Sep

[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