On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:51:08PM -0700, Brady Montz wrote:
> OK, these are good points (I'm leaving the followup gunk at the bottom of my
> post for those who don't have threading mailreaders).
>
> I see three main choices:
> 1. Keep the current architecture.
> 2. Add an SOL (some other language) to FIL (fvwm's internal language).
> 3. Replace FIL with SOL.
>
> I personally would prefer #3. (thanks to Manfred and tonny for pointing out
> the costs of my attempt at compromise). But my desire for compromise remains,
> since there are many people who use fvwm that don't need a fat interpreter in
> the executable. As for #2, I don't like that at all due to the need to
> partition functionality between FIL and SOL(s).
I agree with #3, but I'm not ready to say that Perl, Python, Scheme, or
Tcl is the language. I don't see any of them as being 'configuration'
languages. Sucking in menus by doing:
%RootMenu = (
'Title' => 'Toys',
'Xterms' => (
'regularterm' => 'xterm',
(etc) would be sort of nifty, but does that really belong in a WM? (And
I'm beginning to think it's nifty enough that I should play with
FvwmPipe or X11::Fvwm and see if I can hack something like that....)
It seems to me that adding a few hundred k to the size of fvwm for
this is probably not useful in the core, so what functions are missing
from the module interface that inhibit doing this in modules?
--
Brian Moore Kill A Spammer For Jesus
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal
--
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 Mon May 04 1998 - 17:16:32 BST