Subject: FVWM: IconPath and PixmapPath: naming conventions

From: Neil Zanella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:40:36 -0230 (NDT)

Wouldn't it be better if IconPath would be renamed to "BitmapPath" in view of the fact

that there is a "PixmapPath"? After all Fvwm2 is already incompatible with Fvwm1 so

this extra naming fix should not be a big change in view of what has already been 

changed.

Neil

--
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: shipwrecked voyage of discovery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:56:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Wouldn't it be better if IconPath would be renamed to "BitmapPath"
> in view of the fact that there is a "PixmapPath"? After all Fvwm2
> is already incompatible with Fvwm1 so this extra naming fix should
> not be a big change in view of what has already been changed.

Only if it were currently implemented as an alias, and then perhaps have
"IconPath" deprecated post-2.2. Many of us are using IconPath currently,
and we shouldn't implement a change that breaks an existing config file,
except on an early development track (earlier than the late-beta track Fvwm2
is currently on).

Randy
-- 
Beware the sarcophogi being offered as "gratefully vacant".

[email-masked]

---

From: Neil Zanella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:31:08 -0230 (NDT)

I agree with you. Drastic changes can have bad side effects.

Smooth changes are the way to go. I vote for it to be implemented as

a temporary alias and then if we all like it in the future then we can

all switch.

Neil