On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:25:00AM +0000 I heard the voice of Aaron Sloman, and lo! it spake thus: > > I had the same thought: why not define one or more new functions in > .ctwmrc using the 'f.exec string' mechanism (the string is passed to > /bin/sh for execution).
It's not exec'ing stuff, it builds ctwm linked to librplay and calls funcs in it directly to play through the rplayd server. > Perhaps .ctwmrc doesn't provide syntax for the events required to > produce sounds? Well, yeah, that's the source of the wonder; why a separate file rather than just a block in ctwmrc :) I presume the answer is probably something like "the guy who wrote the patch didn't want to bother". Maybe it's just a straight copy from how it worked in tvtwm (according to the .doc, the patches are a pretty straight port from there). But I gotta wonder, if it's gonna stay around (and apparently somebody's using it, which I wouldn't have bet even money on, so I reckon it will), if it shouldn't be changed to just use the main config like everything else. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [email protected] Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
