Re: [dev] [st] goals / non-goals for st?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Aled Gest <himselfe_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> No you weren't.

My clarification of my position was exactly as connected to previous
statements as your accusation of the garbage you were spouting about
no new functionality or whatever. Incidentally, this thread now
stands as a counterexample to your hypothesis regarding the inability
of petty argument to coexist with useful development discussion.
Thanks for your help in this matter.

> I've got no problem with the terminal part of st being modularized and
> being called from a separate stub that handles how it connects to
> other processes.

That would be necessary anyway if the 'st daemon' idea were to be implemented.

> That way you've effectively got something that does
> the same job, but you've removed complexity from st itself, and you've
> increased flexibility.

More importantly, it allows the attachment of st frontends other than
xlib-based ones to the controlling process, meaning that there can be
directfb or console-based frontends, among other things.

-- 
# Kurt H Maier