On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:03:47PM -0400, Stephen Dennison wrote:
> > You can find the draft at:
> > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/new-config-format/
> > docs/NEW-CONFIG.md
> I read through the draft a bit, below are my questions/comments.
> For parsing compatibility, perhaps a special command, comment, or token to
> indicate which format is being used so that FVWM (and humans) need not
Doubtful. We don't do that for FVWM right now, and indeed, any changes would
presumably happen through conversion scripts as they do now. Not to mention,
as the configuration file is line-based, any "version" token would have to be
embedded on every line.
> Will there be a way to have fvwm yield it's current configuration while
> it's running? If you're going through the effort of redoing the
> configuration parser, this seems like a great time to do this and it would
> be a huge motivator for using the new syntax.
> I'm trying to make sense of the use of comma in the -w option. It's not
> very mini-CLI of it. Why not allow the -w option to be specified more than
Well, separating out -w wouldn't make the effect cumulative, which is what I'm
trying to demonstrate.
Note also that the CLI-like syntac is just that---in the style of, and there's
many instances of commands in the wild which have similar comma-separate
> Do you plan support actual string names of colorsets or are you just sort
> of shoehorning the -n name for the number?
It's all the same to mE
> The values passed to -t in those focus commands has me confused. Above,
> something else that had -t used the format screen:desk.page but this
> doesn't appear to apply to the Focus command. Could you more explicitly
> describe this?
I'll update the document.
-- Thomas Adam