Re: On my recent commits.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:56:52PM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote: * should the options be allowed in any order. Now Reverse has to precede UseStack. If I understood your changes correctly, UseStack and Reverse options are not directly related to each other. In this case I think they should be allowed in any order. If I'm wrong, leave it as is, but please make a note about order in the `fvwm' manpage. Best wishes -- Serge Koksharov, Free Software user supporter GPG public key ID: 0x3D330896 (pgp.mit.edu) Key fingerprint: 5BC4 0475 CB03 6A31 0076 82C2 C240 72F0 3D33 0896
Re: On my recent commits.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Serge (gentoosiast) Koksharov wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:56:52PM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote: * should the options be allowed in any order. Now Reverse has to precede UseStack. If I understood your changes correctly, UseStack and Reverse options are not directly related to each other. In this case I think they should be allowed in any order. If I'm wrong, leave it as is, but please make a note about order in the `fvwm' manpage. The options are not depending on each other. However the reason for the current order requirement was that it was easier to write up in the man page. All [Reverse] [UseStack] [(Conditions)] command implies an order. To allow any order requires some more generic means of documenting the options. Something like All [options] [(Conditions)] command and then state the possible values for options. /Viktor
Re: On my recent commits.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:56:52PM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote: The two options I added to the Add command... s/Add/All/ In `fvwm' manual page: If the option Reverse is given the exection order is reversed `exection' should be `execution' Bye. -- Serge Koksharov, Free Software user supporter GPG public key ID: 0x3D330896 (pgp.mit.edu) Key fingerprint: 5BC4 0475 CB03 6A31 0076 82C2 C240 72F0 3D33 0896
