On 3 September 2014 23:18, Dominik Vogt <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, if you run into problems you can always ask for help un the > users' mailing list. > >> is it still developed? > > Not by me, and I do not know if anybody maintains it.
The last change was by thomas: https://github.com/ThomasAdam/fvwm-themes/commit/49f4091e743d0a639223abf44016785996fc4548 that was 4 years ago. > Granted. I don't like the pixmap implementation either; it was > part of a compromise because many people kept nagging about rounded > window edges and things like that. the TODO file in mvwm suggests this might get reworked? > Neither do I. But we can hardly add every odd scripting language > to the window manager just because someone likes it. I can > remember the fvwm-spinoff called scwm (scheme configurable window > manager) which was (afaik) given up because scheme configuration > turned out to be too slow. yes, Thomas mentioned this in another thread - it looked interesting but ultimately slow. > The decision about the scripting implementation in the new core is > still open, but we need facts and thinking about the correct > choice of the language. i see these things in the TODO file: - The module interface (FVWM <-> Module) is a mess; consider DBUS? Or imsg? - Use libevent to replace the hand-rolled (and often broken) select/poll mechanism. - What about third-party scripting languages? How do we handle that without requiring linking against the specific language in question? i don't know if all three are related to scripting core, but what does the last item mean? is that relating to a choice of language? thank you for your time. Michael
