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

From: Aled Gest <>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:33:12 +0000

> 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.

Don't kid your self. The most recent suggestion you made had no
correlation to anything you said or implied in previous posts
pertaining to our debate.

>> 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.

Exactly, improved flexibility / modularity that reduces code
complexity is win win in my book.
Received on Fri Oct 30 2009 - 23:33:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Oct 30 2009 - 23:36:03 UTC