On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Maarten Maathuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Maarten Maathuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> At 1226615131 time_t, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >>>> Last time i checked the data was malloc'ed, and the initial state >>>> really needs to be false. >>>> But i'll double check. >>> >>> No, it's p_new() which is calloc() so everything is always clean. >>> >>>> It's either this or a force argument to wibox_moveresize(), choose your >>>> pick. >>> >>> I'll prefer none. >>> >>> Maybe, and I say maybe, you should not drop resize request but honor >>> them. Only drop move request (while registering them). >>> >>> So everything will be at good size when unbanning. >>> What do you think? >> >> If the position is adjusted to stay outside the viewport, then this >> "crazy" idea might work. >> >>> >>> -- >>> Julien Danjou >>> // ᐰ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://julien.danjou.info >>> // 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >>> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAkkcquEACgkQpGK1HsL+5c31VACgtXrU+w9vE2dotfoyinD4SuP0 >>> fKcAoMNlsFRHlcaBOocBLzHWaLH581mb >>> =zoDM >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >> > > Your idea worked, new patch attached. > > Maarten. >
A few minor esthetical changes. Maarten.
awesome.patch
Description: Binary data
