On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:01:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > > Hello, > > > When I added ewmh support I needed to add some new entries > > > into the FvwmWindow structure. This force me to set a > > > different version string whether fvwm is compiled with > > > ewmh support or not. This is not very pretty. The solution > > > is to do not ifdef this entries and the corresponding code > > > (the specific ewmh entries will be ignored or used in a > > > dummy way). This is not very pretty too and fvwm2 may > > > need a bit more memory. Any suggestion about the solution > > > to use? > > > > Don't use ifdefs. I don't think EWMH support should be a compile > > time option, and even if it were, ifdefs are not a good way to > > implement that. > > > > So you think that we should have a command EWMHSupport bool > that allows to enable/disable the ewmh support as for Xinerama? > I've no objection to do that.
If we need that at a compile time option, then yes. But since the implementation does not need external references(?) I see no reason not to compile it unconditionally. Writing it in such a modular way that it could be taken out with a #define might still make sense. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20 -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
