Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-10 Thread Dominik Vogt
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-09 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-09 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-09 Thread Dominik Vogt
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-09 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-08 Thread Dominik Vogt
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-08 Thread Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-08 Thread Dominik Vogt
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-08 Thread Dominik Vogt
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

Re: Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-08 Thread Mikhael Goikhman
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

Patch for possible "if-else" syntax

2001-08-07 Thread Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov
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