You would prefer if you avoid duplicating
if (d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] == BUTTON_EVENT_ACTION_STATE)
{
and
d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] &= ~PRESSED_EVENT_WINDOW;
Do you think we should be concerned about making this optional or do you
think it's functionality that everyone wants, even grandma?
- David
Here a new version, i think it's good but may be wrong. Not sure if testing
d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] before xevent->xbutton.button can introduce
some issues...
Why making this optional?
From a user point of view, it doesn't affect how normal maximization work.
But if you think we should add this as an option, i will change my patch.
Cedric
diff --git a/gtk/window-decorator/gtk-window-decorator.c b/gtk/window-decorator/gtk-window-decorator.c
index fe2efde..5d5706b 100644
--- a/gtk/window-decorator/gtk-window-decorator.c
+++ b/gtk/window-decorator/gtk-window-decorator.c
@@ -4102,20 +4102,33 @@ max_button_event (WnckWindow *win,
switch (xevent->type) {
case ButtonPress:
- if (xevent->xbutton.button == 1)
+ if (xevent->xbutton.button <= 3)
d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] |= PRESSED_EVENT_WINDOW;
break;
case ButtonRelease:
- if (xevent->xbutton.button == 1)
+ if (d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] == BUTTON_EVENT_ACTION_STATE)
{
- if (d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] == BUTTON_EVENT_ACTION_STATE)
+ if (xevent->xbutton.button == 1)
{
if (wnck_window_is_maximized (win))
wnck_window_unmaximize (win);
else
wnck_window_maximize (win);
}
-
+ else if (xevent->xbutton.button == 2)
+ {
+ if (wnck_window_is_maximized_vertically (win))
+ wnck_window_unmaximize_vertically (win);
+ else
+ wnck_window_maximize_vertically (win);
+ }
+ else if (xevent->xbutton.button == 3)
+ {
+ if (wnck_window_is_maximized_horizontally (win))
+ wnck_window_unmaximize_horizontally (win);
+ else
+ wnck_window_maximize_horizontally (win);
+ }
d->button_states[BUTTON_MAX] &= ~PRESSED_EVENT_WINDOW;
}
break;
_______________________________________________
compiz mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz
