Subject: FvwmEvent

From: Michael Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:12:20 -0800

So in the process of working on FvwmBacker, I discovered that it is,
in certain respects, pretty similar to FvwmEvent. Either can be setup
to execute arbitrary Fvwm builtins on new_page and new_desk events.
The real differences are that FvwmBacker knows a bit about graphics
and message data, while FvwmEvent can handle any event but doesn't
know anything about an event's data.

So I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile/interesting to make
FvwmEvent able to read event-specific data. I was thinking something
along the lines of the following:

*FvwmEvent new_page Function _NewPageFunc $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5

Notice that *FvwmEventCmd would not be used under the circumstances.
Does this seem worthwhile?
-- 
[email-masked]                         http://www.best.com/~mikehan/
coffee achiever                              San Francisco, California
"'Why is that toy on your head?' 'Because if I wear it anywhere else, it
chafes.'" - Chris Knight
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:53:46 +0200

> Does this seem worthwhile?

I think yes. Since, only fvwm command Function gets parameters, the better
syntax would be:

*FvwmEventCmd builtin-function
*FvwmEvent new_page _NewPageFunc

And the specified function is called with all event data parameters
(5 for new_page, 1 for new_desk etc.).

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Michael Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:16:18 -0800

Previously from Mikhael Goikhman
>(5 for new_page, 1 for new_desk etc.).

I wasn't sure if it'd be sufficient just to pass all the data all the
time, or if it'd be better to let someone pass only the args that
interested him. Then you could directly:

*FvwmEvent new_page PipeRead blah $0 $1 $2

or something. But yes, I initially thought that a simple boolean that
appends the packet data as args would be fine.

I'll probably go ahead and start working on this over the long
weekend, since I'll have some time.
-- 
[email-masked]                         http://www.best.com/~mikehan/
coffee achiever                              San Francisco, California
The life uncaffeinated is not worth living.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]