Tim Phipps wrote:
>
> > From: Stig <stig_at_hackvan.com>
> >
> > Yeah, but I'm not much into retrocomputing. I have a dx2/66 notebook with
> > three times the memory and I can't stand to use X with or without fvwm.
>
> So what are you doing in this mailing list?
Planning to stick around as a "spy"...
> > So, I've taken a look at the code for Enlightenment.
> > The lack of a modules interface is good because I think that modules in
> > their current incarnation are a pain.
>
> We are going to have to differ here. I think modules are a great way of keeping
> FVWM stable while developing functionality in globally diverse locations.
I don't see why a native interface to a well-supported scripting language is
any less stable than the current pipeline and datastream interface.
Many modules are written in scripting languages now
The standard modules (like fvwmauto) don't change and so aren't a source
of instability.
With a scripting language, you can still talk to external modules via
mechanisms such as the Tk 'send' command.
Stig
--
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 Sat Jul 05 1997 - 10:14:55 BST