Subject: Re: FVWM: Re: FvwmEvent 1.0 (FvwmAudio++) Alpha release

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 7:28:53 +0100

Chris Siebenmann <[email-masked]> writes:

> | Has anybody been thinking about introducing something like TCL in
> | fvwm. To me it looks like most current fvwm commands can be translated
> | directly to TCL commands. This would automatically add
> 
>  Heavily programmable window managers have been done before, without
> huge amounts of success. If one wants to try again, I strongly suggest
> using a language that's as good and as clean as possible (not TCL;
> perhaps Python).

If we don't want to be backward compatible with the current
configuration language, then I agree on the "good and clean" part,
though not necessarily on you choice of language...

>  In the context of fvwm, I suggest using the language as an extension
> mechanism instead of the core of the window manager. Look at things that
> just can't be done in fvwm right now and see if you can make it possible
> to program them in the extension language. I doubt that many people want
> to complicate their configuration files by having to write them in a
> language.

But we already have a configuration language abeit a very special one
with a very obscure (and even context dependent!!!) syntax for
functions and menus.

> 
>  I would also suggest that one start by writing a module wrapper such
> that one can write fvwm modules in the language. That would be a useful
> way to add various pieces of functionality and to let you experiment
> with what sorts of language bindings were needed to allow for useful
> features. Bonus points for making the result use as little memory
> as possible, given that one selling point of fvwm over other window
> managers is memory usage.

This could be a good idear, but I don't see the advantages over a new
"good and clean" configuration language.

/tonny

--
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: Chris Siebenmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 18:45:16 -0400

| This could be a good idear, but I don't see the advantages over a new
| "good and clean" configuration language.

 Here is where we differ, because I feel that fvwm2's configuration
language is already highly optimized for its intended purpose and quite
good at being very expressive in a compact way. The only thing I think
is lacking is sophisticated functions, and one can get those without
throwing out the baby with the bathwater (and they need more than a
configuration language change anyways).

 If there are things that cannot currently be done in fvwm2's
configuration language, that's one thing. But to make the syntax more
complex and verbose and picky for no gain except it now being in some
general programming language seems to me to be a very perverse and
backwards thing to do.

	- cks