Re: [STUMP] Hangs with run-shell-command

[Julian Stecklina]

Ian Ross <address@hidden> writes:

> I have a modified version of battery.lisp that doesn't use
> run-shell-command.  However, it uses split-sequence from the
> cl-utilities package, and I don't know how people feel about adding that
> sort of dependency to stumpwm.  I've put the code below for you to look
> at.  Any guidance on whether this would be acceptable as a patch?  (I
> seem to remember making some other changes at the same time, as I was
> having trouble with stumpwm hanging when the battery state changed.  I
> can figure out the differences needed just to remove the
> run-shell-command calls and offer those as a patch if that seems like a
> good idea.)

You could rewrite that using cl-ppcre, which stumpwm already depends on.

Regards,
-- 
Julian Stecklina

Well, take it from an old hand: the only reason it would be easier to
program in C is that you can't easily express complex problems in C,
so you don't. - Erik Naggum (in comp.lang.lisp)

(Spam-Experiment: http://cthulhu.c3d2.de/~astro/badpit.html )