Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> Okay, it took me quite some hours to figure this out: It's *not*
> a problem with fvwm. Although you can't see it, the application
> window *is* mapped. It's just that tk thinks it is not visible
> and thus does not draw anything into it. I couldn't find
> anything that fvwm is doing wrong. Actually, I couldn't even
> find any difference in the requests that wish sends to fvwm -
> regardless if the deiconify line is in the code or not. I think
> there must be a bug in wish.
>
Could it be the case,that fvwm>2.2.5 delivers events to "wish" as a different
type. The update command distinguishes between all events (no parameter) and
idle callbacks (parameter idletasks). Using no parameter for the update there
are no problems (if I remember correctly), but that aim't no the way to go.
Seems like good old 2.2.5 delivers events the do get processed as idle
callbacks, whereas all follow versions don't. I have to take a look at the tcl
sources to get an idea, which event's are put into which category.
--
Gerhard Hintermayer
http://www.inode.at/g.hintermayer
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Mon Jul 01 2002 - 13:40:28 BST