On 6 Apr, Scott Lampert wrote:
>> 3) What would you like to see the commands called? Actually, I don't mind
>> using the whimsical names above, but some people might like to see
>> something a little more, uh, professional.
> Why not just make the second parameter to the Exec call one of the
> three options? For example:
> + Exec [Classic] command1
> It would make it real easy to see what version of it one is using.
While we're at it, let's make the second parameter "exec" if we want
ExecLite, and just use ExecClassic as the default for exec. So:
Exec xterm
is ExecClassic, and
Exec exec xterm
is ExecLite. Wait a minute! It already does this! How quaint.
My point is, we don't really need FVWM to fool around with the shell
command string, by addings "exec"'s and such. It's just asking for
trouble. However, I would support a new command ("Execv" sounds good)
that would be Bob's ExecQuick - just fork and exec directly, doing no
parsing of the command line other than to split args on whitespace.
--Chris
--
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems
of government.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Prologue, "Declaration of Independence"
______________________________________________________________________
Chris Laas: Unix, C++, Perl, Tcl/Tk / mailto:chrisl_at_cybercom.net
Limit[tech->Inf](words/acronyms)==0 / http://www.cybercom.net/~chrisl/
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Sun Apr 06 1997 - 17:03:07 BST