Re: FVWM: Is Move in fvwm3 supposed to be (current) RandR screen relative?

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:45 AM Chris Siebenmann wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:45 AM Chris Siebenmann > > wrote: > > > Is this intended behavior? I can't spot a strong statement either way in > > > the current documentation for Move, although some of the wording sounds > > > a bit odd if

Re: FVWM: Is Move in fvwm3 supposed to be (current) RandR screen relative?

> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:45 AM Chris Siebenmann > wrote: > > Is this intended behavior? I can't spot a strong statement either way in > > the current documentation for Move, although some of the wording sounds > > a bit odd if explicit Move positions are supposed to be screen relative. > >

Re: FVWM: Is Move in fvwm3 supposed to be (current) RandR screen relative?

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:51 AM Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:45 AM Chris Siebenmann > wrote: > > > > > > Is this intended behavior? I can't spot a strong statement either way in > > the current documentation for Move, although some of the wording sounds > > a bit odd if