🚀 go-pugleaf

I was away, so I missed the original message. Sorry if what I say has already
been said.
Yes, gwm is still used and there is a mailing list, mail requests to
gwm-talk-requests@sophia.inria.fr.
There has been no major work on it for some time now, however. I plan to build
a gwm v2 in the future, but I cannot promise anything.

In article <JWZ.92Oct6210542@thalidomide.cs.cmu.edu>, jwz@cs.cmu.edu (Jamie
Zawinski) writes:
> In article <199209222120.AA16488@quip.eecs.umich.edu> anon@eecs.umich.edu
> (Omar S. Juma) wrote:
> > I would prefer an xlisp extension to tvtwm, for example, instead
> > of the weird and hacked lisp that's included in gwm.
> Clearly the right thing would be to add a minimal number of WM primitives
> to the emacs C code, and start your window manager as "emacs -q -l wm.elc".

Well I cannot see the difference between adding WM primitives to xlisp or emacs
lisp. You just have to choose a suitable interpreter between the available
ones,
be it xlisp, xscheme, emacs-lisp, tcl, perl, AE, ELI, Elk, Rexx, siod, fool,
python, forth... and wool as well as dozen of others. 
And each one has its advantages and drawbacks.

But do not forget the other part of the picture: you must design carefully the
WM primitives you offer to the user, Otherwise you would just end up writing a
WM in <you-language> instead of C, and this is an overly complex task, to say
the least.
For instance, gwm "weirdness and hackeness" are due both to the wool language
itself and the model used to represent managed objects.

-- 
Colas Nahaboo, colas@sa.inria.fr, Bull Research Koala proj. Wool&Gwm Architect
Pho:(33) 93.65.77.70(.66 Fax), INRIA, B.P.93 - 06902 Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE.