[email protected] wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:32:05AM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 02:27:25PM +1300, [email protected] wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:14:38AM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: >> > > So set a reasonable delay for you binding: >> > > >> > > Schedule 700 Close >> > >> > Sorry, that won't help in general. Maybe you want to read my initial mail? >> >> It will if you use a function. > > How exactly? Just > > key d A 4 Schedule 1000 Close > > won't help, since, according to the FVWM doc: "The command is executed > in the same context window as the Schedule command". It simply means > that the wrong window is killed later. I've tried this.
Try to define a function. Then let your key binding call this function. Let the function change the focus and then let it fire the close command. Please report the result after you coded and tested this. >> I did read your initial email and you did not give me any reason for >> me to help you. Your question is asking for a solution to a problem >> you've not yet stated; confer an XY problem. > > Problem: I want to configure FVWM to not take away the focus from a > window, while I hold down any modifier key. No reason why, I just > want to. > > I wonder whether I have said anything worng, or unfriendly, or whether > I have a reason not to like your attitude. @Stefan: Be patient. Some people are just uncompromisingly straight and their boundary related to social skills is shifted slightly away from kindness, slightly in the direction of precision. As long as these people do not pass over that boundary in a really unacceptable way, it could be smarter to play along that game and to learn how to deal with this kind of people. The world is full of them. If you are a person with a high level of standards according to the ability to solve sophisticated, challenging problems, then your chances to reach your ambitious goals increase with your ability to deal with difficult people, because these people may be the persons who may give you the deciding ideas that people who are nicer than precise wouldn't be able to give you. When YOU increase your level of social skills significantly, then you can become one of the few people who are equipped with the interface to be able to involve these difficult people into your goals. A lot of people do not have such kind of interface, they run away, they look for less sophisticated, less challenging problems to solve, and will become losers for the rest of their lowbrow lives. http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.tty1.net/smart-questions_de.html > Maybe one of the fellow > readers would be so kind as to set me straight. As I can realize, you unmistakably made clear what you really want: A generic approach. I even helped you making that clear. It seems that this generic approach is not that easy to reach. When this happens, Thomas usually tries to find out your concrete reasons that led you to want your rather generic approach. This means: When generic approaches are not possible, then individual approaches for each concrete reason would be better than nothing. This is one of the implicit rules that people with a high level of social skills should know (or learn (by making mistakes (people who do not make mistakes do not work at all))). :-) Michael
