Re: FVWM: FVWN on a high density System76 screen

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:58:59PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> We had a French developer working with us for many years.
> Right now I can't recall his name, I used to fix up all the
> documentation he wrote.  He offered to fix up the comments but
> never got around to it.

Olivier Chapuis, most likely?  Really clever chap.   Ended up going on to form
Metisse, as I recall.

> I also had a plan to add boxes to FvwmForm.  The idea being
> you'd put fields in lines, lines in boxes, then boxes in the form.
> Relief lines around the boxes would be optional.
> Just an idea, I never started that.

I think that's a nice visual que, and the same could be applied to creating
tables as well.

> I wanted to do the widgets first.

This is definitely an area where FvwmScript has the upperhand, although I
admit I've never looked too deeply at how FvwmScript implements the widgets it
offers.

> Okay, at least you know something is missing.

One of many things.  :)

> > If you have a list of things which could be moved in to FvwmScript from
> > FvwmForm, I'd be interested in seeing that.  One of the things I liked about
> > FvwmForm (I did used to use it, BTW) was it could be told to grab the XServer.
> > So I wrote a FvwmForm instance to do just that in StartFunction to go in to
> > Work or Home mode, which would open certain applications, etc.  Although I
> > don't have a need for that now, the ability to grab the XServer would still be
> > useful.
> 
> Not sure I understand.

I was referring to FvwmForm's "GrabServer" option.  I used to make use of that
a lot in the FvwmForms I used to use.

> If you look at the comments I left in FvwmForm, I had some idea about
> it sitting around as a form display server to make it even faster.
> 
> I'm not sure about FvwmScript but I don't think it has the same capability
> to save and reuse what you last entered as FvwmForm does.

Oh, almost certainly not.

> Since we are blue skying here, I also had an idea that you could use
> FvwmForm to design new FvwmForms.  It would need the ability to display
> tables.

Could you expand on this a bit?

I'm happy to bring FvwmForm back (to Fvwm3) if the overlap with FvwmScript is
to minimal.  But I'd like to still explore in which direction an amalgamation
between FvwmScript <-> FvwmForm should go.  If I've overlooked this in the
wrong direction with how things are now, I'm happy to stand corrected!

Kindly,
Thomas