Subject: Re: FVWM: Re: Exec vs. exec

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 22:54:18 -0500 (EST)

In recent days, David Goldberg, Randy Ray, and Kai Grossjohann wrote:
>>>>    [lots of informative stuff...]

    So, it seems we really need 3 options to satisfy everybody...

    1) ExecClassic  -- the original, as Exec reverted to in 2.0.43: no 
       implicit exec added, if you want it, you add it. This must 
       be used to handle things like
         Exec  xterm -e my-first-thing ; my-second-1 ; my-third 
       I suppose Exec should continue to use this form, for backward 
       compatibility...?
    2) ExecLite  -- as Exec was in 2.0.42: always using exec
    3) ExecQuick -- (UltraLite?) no shell, just use an exec call directly.

    I suppose Exec should continue to use the Classic form, for backward 
compatibility (though I really preferred the ExecLite version)? Unless 
somebody wants to see yet another command, something like

                ExecDefaultsTo [Classic | Lite | Quick]

    Since I opened my big mouth and reawakened a discussion that had just about
died of old age and natural causes, I'll volunteer to work up a patch to 
implement this. First, though, I'd like to hear your suggestions on the 
following  - a consensus among users would be really nice.

    1) As an alternative to having 3 separate commands, we could try ultra 
       clever parsing of the command string to try to decide which style is best
       for it. I'd shy away from that, because a) 3 distinct commands give 
       greater flexibility to the power user who wants precise control, and 
       b) one of these days someone's going to come up with an environment 
       customized to use some other delimiter than a semicolon, and I don't want
       to be around when it happens. Opinions? 

    2) Which do you think should be the default behavior for the existing Exec 
       command? No, I don't want to use #3 as the default.

    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.

    - Bob

                To exec, or not to exec, that is the question -
                Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
                The slings and arrows of outrageous forking,
                Or to take arms against a sea of shell procs,
                And by exec-ing, end them?...

                For...who would flame wars bear,
                To grunt and sweat under a weary shell,
                But that the fear of something after fork -
                That undiscovered country from whose Bourne
                No traveller returns - puzzles the will,
                And makes us rather bear those procs we have
                Than spawn yet others that we know not of.
                Thus conscience does make cowards of us all....

--
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 [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Scott Lampert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:34:58 -0400

>        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.
              -Scott

-- 
Scott Lampert
[email-masked]
http://www.ioa.com/~fortunato
"Sing the Hare Hare, Dance the Hoochie Koo"

---

From: Chris Laas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:03:48 -0400 (EDT)

> 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:[email-masked]
Limit[tech->Inf](words/acronyms)==0 / http://www.cybercom.net/~chrisl/

---

From: "Randy J. Ray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:07:51 -0600

Good lord, if I had known my complaints would have spawned this sort of
debate, I'd have kept quiet once I was shown the "Exec exec" syntax.

> parsing of the command line other than to split args on whitespace.

This message best mirrors my own feelings. First off, we should do absolutely
*nothing* to Exec. To alter it would threaten the existing rc files of the 
entire fvwm2 user base.

All I had suggested was a faster, lighter Execv keyword. I had no intention of
leading this topic into a triple of new keywords, new syntax, etc. Anymore, I
would be content if the docs just pointed out Exec exec as the solution to
avoiding the intermediate shell.

Randy
--
===============================================================================
Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS         Phone: (303)595-2869
                Denver, CO                                     [email-masked]
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept." --Calvin
===============================================================================
--
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 [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].