On 27 Feb 2002 12:53:05 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:58:05AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 27 Feb 2002 07:17:12 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> > > I did not say that other commands *can* not have a return code but
> > > that they *do* not have one
On 27 Feb 2002 13:12:02 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:40:51AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> >
> > If you think this is a mix, yes, but it is not different from this:
> >
> > Current (foobar) Next (foobar2) Close
> >
> > For me it should return:
> >
> > * Curr
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:40:51AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2002 10:58:05 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Feb 2002 07:17:12 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > We shouldn't mix both because it would become hard to understand for
> > > example
> > >
> > > Curre
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:58:05AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2002 07:17:12 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > I did not say that other commands *can* not have a return code but
> > that they *do* not have one. My intentions was to keep the return
> > code of conditionals s
On 27 Feb 2002 10:58:05 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 2002 07:17:12 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > We shouldn't mix both because it would become hard to understand for
> > example
> >
> > Current (foobar) Read
> >
> > returns (the rc of Read or the rc of Current?).
>
> It
On 27 Feb 2002 07:17:12 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:43:29AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 24 Feb 2002 01:42:09 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > [SNIP, see mailing list archive for more details]
> > >
> > > I've made a shot at the "if-else" syntax. Now
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:43:29AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2002 01:42:09 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > [SNIP, see mailing list archive for more details]
> >
> > I've made a shot at the "if-else" syntax. Now, all conditional
> > commands (and only conditional commands) hav
On 24 Feb 2002 01:42:09 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> [SNIP, see mailing list archive for more details]
>
> I've made a shot at the "if-else" syntax. Now, all conditional
> commands (and only conditional commands) have a return code that
> can be true (1), false (0) or error (-1). There are th
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:05:51AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2001 13:34:02 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > How about this enhancement to conditional commands:
> >
> > Next (conditions) { false-action } true-action
> >
> > This would allow an "else" case in all conditional c
fvwm-workers@fvwm.org wrote:
> I'd be content to have a solution for
> these problems:
>
> 1) If a certain window exists, kill it; if not, start it.
AddToFunc temp_true_list
+ I Prev (certain_window) Close
AddToFunc temp_true
+ I DestroyFunc temp
+ I AddToFunc temp I temp_true_list
AddToFunc tem
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:15:36AM +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > If you ask me, I would place a real interpreter language, tcl is fine.
> > But this does not seem possible. This would require an absolutely new
> > syntax. I am ready to rewrite hundreds of kilobytes of f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you ask me, I would place a real interpreter language, tcl is fine.
> But this does not seem possible. This would require an absolutely new
> syntax. I am ready to rewrite hundreds of kilobytes of fvwm-themes
> configs, but I fear that some others have problems to rew
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:01:51AM +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 05 Aug 2001 13:34:02 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > How about this enhancement to conditional commands:
> > >
> > > Next (conditions) { false-action } true-action
> > >
> > This may work, bu
On 06 Aug 2001 10:01:51 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
>
> I think we can already do conditional code using self modifying
> functions:
Ah yes, I forgot, I use self modifying functions in fvwm-themes to
implement a state. But I would prefer functions to be used on purpose,
to define an interface with p
On 06 Aug 2001 00:05:51 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> Here is my revised proposal that solves all problems described above.
>
> There are 2 constructs, one is long and one is short, both may be mixed:
>
> if Next (conditions) {
> then-commands, one per line
> }
> else {
> else
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 05 Aug 2001 13:34:02 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > How about this enhancement to conditional commands:
> >
> > Next (conditions) { false-action } true-action
> >
> This may work, but is this the best possible solution? This syntax is not
> very readable and h
On 05 Aug 2001 13:34:02 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> How about this enhancement to conditional commands:
>
> Next (conditions) { false-action } true-action
>
> This would allow an "else" case in all conditional commands
> without the need to store a return code of these commands. For
> exam
17 matches
Mail list logo
