> > > How about dumping that whole screwed up method to specify options > > > for individual menu items and doing it from scratch? E.g. > > > > > > NewAddToMenu menu_name item_name [(item_options)] ItemAction > > > NewAddToMenu menu_name (menu_options) > > > > > > and > > > > > > + item_name [(item_options)] ItemAction > > > + (menu_options) > > > > > > The item_options and menu_options are enclosed in parentheses and > > > can be omitted. > > > > > > Menu options: > > > DynamicPopupAction > > > DynamicPopdownAction > > > MissingSubmenuFunc > > > SidePicture > > > SideColor > > > (did I forget anything?) > > > > Couldn't we just do this in MenuStyle or something along those lines? IE, > > if it has to do with the menu as a whole, do it with MenuStyle. If it has > > to do with Items, do it on a per-item basis? > > The you might need a separate menu style for each menu. The > SidePicture and SideColor options are already part of the menu > style, but for each dynamically generated menu you'd need a > different style.
Hrm. Yeah, that would get ugly real quick. Would doing something like what follows be interesting? NewAddToMenu "AppMenu" + Style SidePixmap "ninja.xpm" + Style SideColor gray + Item "Application Menu" Title + Item "" Nop + Item "Corporate Time" Exec /usr/local/bin/ctime + Property Greyed + Property Hotkey T And maybe allow for S for style, I for item, P for property, etc? > > > Item options: > > > Greyed > > > Hotkey > > > Picture > > > > What is the "Picture" one? > > The picture is displayed above the item's label. It's a relic of > the past that I never found a use for. Ohhhh ok, I remember seeing that now. > > I'd definitely agree with this, simply because no one can be sure exactly > > where the user would want the pixmap to appear. Except.. that kinda kills > > my "don't parse every line" thing. lol > > You have to parse each label for tabs anyway. Good point, didn't occur to me. =/ > > I'm not sure there's really > > another option for pixmaps other than limiting options and having a: > > Pixmap <filename> > > PixmapAlignment left | right > > item style set. =/ > > The alignment can be defined with the MenuStyle. Ah, via the ItemFormat option? Now that I've read over the pixmap inclusion thing, I think I'd prefer to take that out of the actual menu entry as well and put it up as a: + Property Pixmap <filename> > > > The proposed syntax is almost completely compatible with the old. > > > Only items that have a name enclosed in parentheses but no action > > > or items that have an action beginning with a left parenthesis > > > are interpreted differently. I can't hink of any reason why > > > someone would want that. > > > > This is true, but at least they would get a complaint about the line and > > go edit it (at least I assume). The only option I can think of to insure > > backwards compatibility would be: > > AddToMenu menu_name item_name ItemAction > > AddToItem item_options > > + item_name ItemAction > > * item_options > > (or ++ or : or whatever) > > Or "NewAddToMenu". '+' remembers which command it refers to. Are you wanting to actually call ot NewAddToMenu or replace the current AddToMenu? I kinda figured since it's a "major version change" of sorts that changing the way the menu's are specified somewhat wouldn't be all that bad a thing. Daniel -- /\\\----------------------------------------------------------------------///\ \ \\\ Daniel Henninger http://www.vorpalcloud.org/ /// / \_\\\ North Carolina State University - Systems Programmer ///_/ \\\ Information Technology <IT> /// """--------------------------------------------------------------""" -- 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]
