I guess I should interpret the silence on this as a resounding yes?
Sorry if I hit a sore spot or something...
Tom
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Thomas A. Gardiner wrote:
>
>Say, is it still the case that fvwm2 is incapable of passing arguments to
>scripts?
>
>Tom
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Thomas Gardiner
>gardiner_at_pas.rochester.edu
>
>University of Rochester
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>P. O. Box 270171
>Rochester, NY 14627-0171
>
>(716) 275-9625 Office 2
>(716) 275-0537 Office 1
>(716) 275-8527 fax
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it
>because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
>If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature
>were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living.- Henri Poincare
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>--
>Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
>To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
>message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
>To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
>
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Fri Jan 14 2000 - 10:24:13 GMT