On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:10:16PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2001 21:29:50 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:14:01PM +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it really necessary to pass func
On 09 Aug 2001 17:35:57 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> I'd rather rewrite the syntax 20 commands than extend the command
> parser in such a way. Currently it is *the* worst piece of fvwm
> code: not extensible, hard to understand, undpredictable, buggy.
I am not sure why do you think so. I see n
On 08 Aug 2001 21:29:50 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:14:01PM +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > > Is it really necessary to pass function return codes through
> > > global variables? If we do this now we will r
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:29:01PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2001 14:57:41 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:45:34AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > >
> > > In any way, this solution is more clean and extendible than the Dominik's
> > > one and it d
On 08 Aug 2001 14:57:41 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:45:34AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> >
> > In any way, this solution is more clean and extendible than the Dominik's
> > one and it does not change any existing syntax.
>
> Hm. I'd really prefer a solution tha
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:14:01PM +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> > Is it really necessary to pass function return codes through
> > global variables? If we do this now we will regret it some day.
>
> That's just a logical consequence
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Is it really necessary to pass function return codes through
> global variables? If we do this now we will regret it some day.
That's just a logical consequence of current CMD_fff calling
convention. I really investigated if globals can be avoid
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:45:34AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2001 00:27:18 +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
> >
> > I've made a patch which implements a simple "if-else" syntax.
> >
> > A new "Otherwise" command is introduced (wouldn't clash with possible
> > futur
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:27:18AM +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
Content-Description: Mail message body
> Hi!
>
> I've made a patch which implements a simple "if-else" syntax.
>
> A new "Otherwise" command is introduced (wouldn't clash with possible
> future syntax enhanceme
On 08 Aug 2001 00:27:18 +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
>
> I've made a patch which implements a simple "if-else" syntax.
>
> A new "Otherwise" command is introduced (wouldn't clash with possible
> future syntax enhancements, right?), which executes supplied command only if
> prev
Hi!
I've made a patch which implements a simple "if-else" syntax.
A new "Otherwise" command is introduced (wouldn't clash with possible
future syntax enhancements, right?), which executes supplied command only if
previous command was unsuccessful. So the syntax is:
AddToFunc "Do-thi
11 matches
Mail list logo