On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Uli Schlachter <psyc...@znc.in> wrote: > Don't you think that might have something to do with the number of patches > that > you send in? :-)
Yeah, that too :). On a related note, in my rc.lua, instead of separately defining ror bindings for each client separately, I hook them on to my rules table. Let me illustrate: { rule_any = { class = {"Iceweasel", "Google-chrome"} }, except_any = { name = { "Chat" }, role = { "Manager" } }, ror = { exec = config.global.browser, key = "i" } }, Note the 'ror' key in that rule snippet. Later in my rc.lua, I have: for _, entry in ipairs(awful.rules.rules) do if entry.ror then globalkeys = awful.util.table.join( globalkeys, awful.key({ config.global.modkey, }, entry.ror.key, function() local filter = function (c) return (awful.rules.match(c, entry.rule) or awful.rules.match_any(c, entry.rule_any)) and (not awful.rules.match(c, entry.except) and not awful.rules.match_any(c, entry.except_any)) end awful.client.run_or_raise(entry.ror.exec, filter, entry.ror.merge) end)) end end So any rule with an ror key automatically gets its keybinding. I was wondering if something like this could make its way upstream. And how? Can't have it in awful.rules.apply because it doesn't have access to the globalkeys table. Can't have it in callbacks because it is executed only when the client starts. Also note the redundancy of the filter function with the condition in awful.rules.apply. Thoughts? -- Anurag Priyam -- To unsubscribe, send mail to awesome-devel-unsubscr...@naquadah.org.