On 31 May 2004 21:53:51 -0400, Norman Yarvin wrote:
>
> This is a small patch that allows multiple window names to be specified
> in conditions. I've tried to write it with the same style used in the
> rest of the code, although some variable names may be a bit terse by your
> standards. The patch keeps the window names in a linked list. It
> includes updates to the man page and ChangeLog. The patch is against the
> current CVS code. What exactly it does is best described by the modified
> portion of the man page:
>
[...]
>
> Examples:
>
> Next (Netscape konqueror Mozilla*) WarpToWindow 99 90
>
> This goes to the next web browser window, no matter which of
> the three named web browsers is being used.
Like other posters, I don't quite like that names are sudently work
using logical OR while all other options in conditional commands work
using logical AND. And the nagations of names work using AND again.
Here is the proposal that should solve all these ambiguities, but it is
a bit backward incompatible in that one character is treated specially.
I don't think there is any fvwm user that has a conditional in his config
that will be broken however, so this is mostly the theoretical problem.
1) All condition options always work using logical AND, as usual.
2) Any option is either keyword or window name/resource/class, as usual.
3) Options (with possible argument) are separated by commas, as usual.
4) In the future we will have (Name "name1", Class "name2") syntax.
5) The leading character "!" means logical NOT of that option, as usual.
6) Any name may contain a spacial character "|" meaning logical OR.
Here are examples:
Next ("Netscape|konqueror|Mozilla*") WarpToWindow 99 90 # go to browser
All (CurrentPage, "xterm|rvxt", !Iconified) Iconify # iconify terminals
Next (!"FvwmPager|FvwmForm*|FvwmButtons") Raise # raise next non-module
Next (!FvwmPager, !FvwmForm*, !FvwmButtons) Raise
The last 2 commands are equivalent. So basically, we don't really need
to support more than one name options like in the last example. I am
not against to add such extended support though.
I think this syntax naturally extends the current syntax and allows most
of the logical expressions a user may want to have. This can't be said
about the original proposed syntax.
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]
