Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On 7/18/06, seventh guardian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/18/06, Viktor Griph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. The ! negation style is preferred. I coded it for exactly the reasons you describe. There are so many different typed of on/off syntax. Should the old style negation options be deprecated in the code (give warnings) before 2.6? I vote yes ;) Regarding my docs intervention, I finished my last exam today, so hopefuly I have some spare time now. One question though: (bump) The question remains.. If noone is against, then I'll do my best :) Cheers, Renato I think it's better to mention the fact that the !* is now prefered (and the other negations are deprecated) only once, instead of mentioning it in every command description. This way we have a man page section with something like: NoButton - !Button NoTitle - !Title (...) or even something like: These negation styles are deprecated. Please use now the ! sign to negate the styles. The list: NoButton, NoTitle, (...) I think this clears up the manpage and concentrates the info about deprecated styles in only one place (easyer to maintain and to track). Any opinions on this, and if agreed, on how should this be done? It's a major doc cleanup process, so it should be well done. Cheers, Renato
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On 7/18/06, Viktor Griph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. The ! negation style is preferred. I coded it for exactly the reasons you describe. There are so many different typed of on/off syntax. Should the old style negation options be deprecated in the code (give warnings) before 2.6? I vote yes ;) Regarding my docs intervention, I finished my last exam today, so hopefuly I have some spare time now. One question though: I think it's better to mention the fact that the !* is now prefered (and the other negations are deprecated) only once, instead of mentioning it in every command description. This way we have a man page section with something like: NoButton - !Button NoTitle - !Title (...) or even something like: These negation styles are deprecated. Please use now the ! sign to negate the styles. The list: NoButton, NoTitle, (...) I think this clears up the manpage and concentrates the info about deprecated styles in only one place (easyer to maintain and to track). Any opinions on this, and if agreed, on how should this be done? It's a major doc cleanup process, so it should be well done. Cheers, Renato
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. Comments? Renato Yes -- I thought 2.5.X was having the !Foo syntax as the preferred one, removing any old Foo versus NoFoo options. Of course, it's currently on FVWM 2.4.X which still exhibits this. -- Thomas Adam -- If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat. -- Incredible String Band.
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On 7/17/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. Comments? Renato Yes -- I thought 2.5.X was having the !Foo syntax as the preferred one, removing any old Foo versus NoFoo options. Of course, it's currently on FVWM 2.4.X which still exhibits this. Yes, but then the 2.5 manual should be updated. I'll start doing that.. Renato -- Thomas Adam -- If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat. -- Incredible String Band.
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:02:47PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Yes, but then the 2.5 manual should be updated. I'll start doing that.. Don't be too hasty. :) Things like: Style foo !Icon Won't work. -- Thomas Adam -- If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat. -- Incredible String Band.
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On 7/17/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:02:47PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Yes, but then the 2.5 manual should be updated. I'll start doing that.. Don't be too hasty. :) Things like: Style foo !Icon Won't work. Yes, I know :) But in any case, I'll test things before changing the manpage.. Renato -- Thomas Adam -- If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat. -- Incredible String Band.
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Thomas Adam wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:02:47PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Yes, but then the 2.5 manual should be updated. I'll start doing that.. Don't be too hasty. :) Things like: Style foo !Icon Won't work. Another thing to remember is that all options that still are supported, but not preferred should still be documented, or someone searching for what an option in a config file does might not find it. /Viktor
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On 7/17/06, Viktor Griph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Thomas Adam wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:02:47PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Yes, but then the 2.5 manual should be updated. I'll start doing that.. Don't be too hasty. :) Things like: Style foo !Icon Won't work. Another thing to remember is that all options that still are supported, but not preferred should still be documented, or someone searching for what an option in a config file does might not find it. Yes, I also adressed that. I hope the first three items are good. I'll continue tomorrow after my last exam.. :) Cheers, Renato /Viktor
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. The ! negation style is preferred. I coded it for exactly the reasons you describe. There are so many different typed of on/off syntax. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Flags - is negation prefered?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Dominik Vogt wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:47:13PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: Hi. I have a question. Is the flag vs. !flag syntax the prefered one? I ask this because even though some styles only have the !(stylename) counterpart, some are still documented as (stylename)Off. So if the flag negation is prefered to the (stylename) vs. (stylename)Off, or the other way round, then it should be explicit in the man page. This is the only way we can avoid compatibility confusion in a future version. My opinion is that the flag vs. !flag style is simpler to parse, and it should be prefered. the (stylename)Off code should be maintained for compatibility's sake, but marked as deprecated. The ! negation style is preferred. I coded it for exactly the reasons you describe. There are so many different typed of on/off syntax. Should the old style negation options be deprecated in the code (give warnings) before 2.6? /Viktor
