At 1247090952 time_t, Gregor Best wrote: > It does, because it removes the calculation of the actual text position > from C. Without that, widget_geometries isn't fully functional, as text > doesn't get drawn where the layout function decides it should.
Okay. > Premature optimization is the root of all evil :) I can't disagree. > > > + lua_insert(globalconf.L, lua_gettop(globalconf.L) - 1); > > > + lua_pop(globalconf.L, 1); > > > > I think we said that's totally noop, no? > > [...] > > It is not. lua_insert() needs an absolute stack position, which is why > the lua_gettop() is used there (-1 would be a relative position). These > two lines exchange the two top stack elements and then remove the new > top, effectively removing the second element from the top (which is the > layout function, it's not needed anymore and it would taint the stack if > it stayed on top of it). Yeah, actually I reread your code, and it can be simplified to: lua_insert(L, -2); lua_pop(L, 1); Which also can be simplified to: lua_remove(L, -2); AFAICT. > I'll do. Basically, we get the size we want the systray to be drawn at > upon drawing the tray, thus removing the query to the xcb_get_geometry > function. As all windows embedded in the systray are squares, their size > is equal to their height, so we simply force the size to be wibox_height > * n x wibox_height, where n is the number of embedded windows, instead > of deriving it from the largest embedded window (which, for example in > the case of wicd, would be 200x200, way too much for one window on a > regular wibox). I'm not sure you can assume all systray icons are square. But well, I guess you have a pragmatic approach, so it should work right now. If something happens, we'll know and we'll fix it. :) > Totally. This would ease up the implementation quite a bit, I'll do it. I'm glad that even ease your work. :-) > It does indeed brake resizable imageboxes, and frankly, I have no idea > how we could replace that. I think the best idea would be to have things > settle down and then take a closer look at it. I agree. > Would be very nice :) This bastard does not sounds interested. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou // ᐰ <jul...@danjou.info> http://julien.danjou.info // 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD // Don't give up.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
