On 10 Feb 2003 14:10:18 +0100, Remko Troncon wrote:
>
> > I would like to have this patch applied, but I don't have enough time to
> > do this now.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
> > Probably the option name should be different.
> > How about having 2 options UpRelief and DownRelief with values
> > "flat", "none", "raised" and "sunken" ("flat" is different from "none"
> > in that it consumes Frame space, but I am not sure this is needed).
>
> These options would make the possibility of negative frame values obsolete,
> right ? This approach allows more control over the relief, although i'm not
> sure if someone would ever need that much possibilities of relief (e.g.
> having both up and down state sunken).
>
> > I don't know. This abs() line seems to be even in 2.2.x.
> > But negative frame worked in 2.4.x as stated in the man page.
> > I think this bug (always raised-looking relief) is somewhere else.
>
> Weird. Because IIRC, removing this line seemed to remove the bug.
These were only my thooughst. If you redo the patch (possibly fixing
the negative Frame or, instead, making it absolete by new options),
it is likely that your solution (whichever it will be) is applied.
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
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]
