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
> guess?

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
examples (sort(1)).

> 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

Reply via email to