Hi,

I have to agree. Part of the reason is that there is not a lot of FVWM development is that it does what it does very well and has not needed a lot of change.


I know that I've heard people asking for support for 3D effects, but I've never heard a complaint about the configuration format. What are the shortcomings of the current configuration format that the new format addresses?

Cheers,

Ron

--
If C++ is your only tool, all problems look like your thumb.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Tom Horsley wrote:

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:48:49 -0400
From: Tom Horsley <horsley1...@gmail.com>
Cc: f...@fvwm.org, fvwm-workers@fvwm.org
Subject: Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:38:04 +0200
Bert Geens wrote:

Hello fellow Fvwm users,

Thomas has started working on a draft for a new configuration format
that should fix some of the shortcomings of the current one.

There are no shortcomings in the current format :-). It has the
overwhelmingly important attribute of not frigging changing out
from under me every dadgum release because someone thinks it
is too old and needs to change. I use fvwm because it keeps working
the same way all the time when everything else on linux is
cursed with change for the sake of change.

Don't do it :-).



Reply via email to