Am Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:15:25 +0900 (JST) schrieb Teika Kazura <[email protected]>:
> Hi. > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:27:41 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > > Am Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:40:45 +0900 (JST) > > schrieb Teika Kazura <[email protected]>: > > > >> * Command group is 'exit sawfish'? > > Sorry, I wanted to say (defgroup exit "Exit Sawfish" :group misc). Nope. It uses "External Applications" from sawfish.wm.commands.launcher As you also define external commands here. > > >> * Func & command 'exit' is so confusing with 'quit'. But what'll be > >> good? > > [...] I think that exit is good, because: > > > > quit = close an application (see "Quit/Close Application" term) > > exit = close the session (see "Exit Session" term) > > Who can distinguish the function (quit) which kills sawfish from > (exit)? (If 'quit' had been named 'raw-quit', then there were no > problem, but we can *never* rename this core function. ;) > > > exit-session is not optimal, as it may also be: > > exit-session-and-suspend or exit-session-and-reboot and so on, so we > > need something that is valid for all 5 cases exit may be used for. > > But I insist that exit-session will be better than bare 'exit' by the > above reason. (I'm not sure for the word "session". I don't know > exactly how the word "session" is used inside the current Sawfish, and > the common meaning outside of Sawfish, either. Of course it's better > than my "exit-wrapper".) [] exit [] safe-quit [] exit-session > Regards, > Teika (Teika kazura) >
