Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote: > On 25 July 2012 18:38, Thomas Funk <t.f...@web.de> wrote: >>> Dan Espen wrote: >>> Thomas Adam made some comments about using FvwmPerl. Is that resolved? > No -- and as such, until it starts to use perllib and/or FvwmPerl, > it's not ready. There is *no* reason why we wouldn't dog-food our own > implementation of interfacing to FVWM, other than the individual > developer concerned didn't understand it. We _have_ a framework to do > all of the functionality the code currently uses; it's high-time we > use it. > >> I've fixed all what Thomas suggested except the part to do the complete >> stuff with the perllib framework. That needs a little bit more time. > But that's the entirety of this file, as far as I am concerned. A > pretty important part, too. > >> I hope it is ok for Thomas that you want to commit it because it's only >> an interim solution. > Until this is fixed, I would rather this wasn't put in CVS at all. As > I've mentioned my time is limited, but if I have to roll up my sleeves > and take responsibility for this, I don't mind. I'd rather not > though, but either way, someone should let me know if I have to. > > Kindly, > > -- Thomas Adam > I would first like to say that it takes some time to understand your writing. I am not a native English, so please forgive me if I haven't understood it completely/correctly.
I am willing to do the job of rewriting it but I need help. If you could take some of your spare time to give me hints and answer questions fairly would be fine. What I want to say is, that i want an open, honest and constructive discussion about the programming and functionality of the module and not "RTFM" - I do this every time before I asking. So if you're willing to be a "mentor" in a sense I am ready to programming it. Kindly, Thomas