Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:31:34PM -0700, elliot s wrote: > What would be an example of what a user defined function looks like? > That's where most of the "needs easy reading and editing" happens. > Also, i would have a space between option and value. > So -f red, not -fred (who's fred, and

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Lucio Chiappetti
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote: Secondly, take another look at the document, since it tells you how functions could be specified. "the document", if I'm reading the right one, is just a very short sketch (3-4 pages) with some examples ... compared to the much longer man pages I

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread elliot s
<< BlockA \ line1, \ line2, \ line3, \ line4 Is less visually appealing and can be more difficult locate errors than BlockB { line1, line2, line3, line4 } >> There's the python method of blockingusing indentation.

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:37:41PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:38:27PM -0400, lists-f...@useunix.net wrote: > > Is it different as in it gets rid of the annoying '\' characters that > > need to be at the end of every line. Unless you are saying that they > > aren't

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread John Wiggins
The python method has some serious defficiencies when applied to input files like .fvwmrc2, i.e. white space you cannot see (space vs tab) matters and cause read errors that drive you crazy… IMO, the BlockB { line1, line2,

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:32:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0700, elliot s wrote: > > > take another look at the document, since it tells you how functions could > > > be specified. > > > > I missed seeing the example, but it was as i thought. > > A

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread lists-fvwm
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:27:47PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:20:50PM -0400, lists-f...@useunix.net wrote: > > Is it worth considering moving away from line-based processing for > > entities like functions? > > > > Changing the example in the document to something

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:38:27PM -0400, lists-f...@useunix.net wrote: > Is it different as in it gets rid of the annoying '\' characters that > need to be at the end of every line. Unless you are saying that they > aren't necessary? They're continuation markers. Lots of programs honour those

[fvwmorg/fvwm] fd3db6: Config: updates

2016-09-21 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: fd3db67405ebde9662baf2a407304e1f1a3944cc https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/fd3db67405ebde9662baf2a407304e1f1a3944cc Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-21 (Wed, 21 Sep

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 795f4d: Config: updates

2016-09-21 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 795f4d4a97eb98a7cc523a50dc76df98ab40308b https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/795f4d4a97eb98a7cc523a50dc76df98ab40308b Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-21 (Wed, 21 Sep

Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

2016-09-21 Thread gi1242+fvwm
One thing I wouldn't mind added is "here documents". I use FvwmPerl quite a bit and my config is full of things like + I SendToModule perlwops eval \ my ($NEWX, $WIN) = (0, undef); \ foreach $WIN (@b) { \ $NEWX = $WIN->{x}+$WIN->{width} \ ... (10 more

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 545d7e: Config: updates

2016-09-21 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 545d7e73d54e3ff054b318e65c96956b27d676d9 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/545d7e73d54e3ff054b318e65c96956b27d676d9 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-21 (Wed, 21 Sep

Re: Static Analysis (Coverity Scan)

2016-09-21 Thread Stephen Dennison
How do we request access to the scan results? Trying to view the link tells me I'm not authorized to access the page. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: > Hi all, > > A while ago, I set up the FVWM repository to hook into Coverity [0], who > specialise in

Re: Static Analysis (Coverity Scan)

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:19:10PM -0400, Stephen Dennison wrote: > How do we request access to the scan results? > > Trying to view the link tells me I'm not authorized to access the page. It looks as though this isn't public. I'll add your email address to the list of authorised users, and

[fvwmorg/fvwm] e787ea: Config: updates

2016-09-21 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/ta/new-config-format Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: e787ea93554a7174901fda9a8360b501f41189bd https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/e787ea93554a7174901fda9a8360b501f41189bd Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-09-21 (Wed, 21 Sep

Static Analysis (Coverity Scan)

2016-09-21 Thread Thomas Adam
Hi all, A while ago, I set up the FVWM repository to hook into Coverity [0], who specialise in static analysis and allow open source projects to be run against their tools for free. To that end the results are in: https://scan.coverity.com/projects/fvwm/view_defects I think it's rather