On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 12:14:10AM +0200, Henrik Holst wrote: > I think an implementation of EWMH would make it possible to remove the > dwm panel (the one that reads stdin and displays it) from dwm code base. > > In that way dwm would be smaller (or maybe just break even) and more > symmetric with how dmenu is fitted to the equation today. It would also > allowe the user to choose whatever kind of "panel" he or she wants. That > is an escape and dpanel (or some other name maybe) would not have to be > counted in the ridicules 2 kloc limit. :P > > But seriously, EWMH support with struts and all, should be on the top of > the list for dwm. EWMH is too important to be left to forks. > > Something for 5.0?
EWMH is evil. I see reasons for people arguing to get rid of the status text processing code in dwm, but the tagging approach is a too integral part of dwm which heavily depends on the bar. Thus there is no way to get rid of the bar. The overhead introduced by EWMH and a EWMH-driven bar for the tagging concept would make the code base much more complex. Currently I'm at a stage to reconsider features for removal again. Esp. DEFGEOM seems to have a lot of potential for simplification(s). Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
