That's what I still think too. Fortunally DEFGEOM is gone in dwm-tip. Nevertheless there is a trend in dwm to "overoptimise" the code. I think dwm-4.7 was the simplest. That's why my branch is still based on 4.7.
2008/5/16, Steffen Liebergeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi folks, > > after some time in proprietary environments I tried to get back to dwm. > Unfortuately I was somewhat disappointed. > > Although I really appreciate your effort to simplify and reduce the code, it > is now my impression that you drove it too far. The code is small as hell, > and it might even be somewhat clever, but it is anything than > self-documentary. > > Just have a look at that line: > DEFGEOM(single, 0, 0, sw, 0, bh, sw, sh-bh, wx, wy, mfact*sw, wh, mx+mw, > wy, ww-mw, wh, wx, wy, ww, wh) > > This is a true "wtf"! What the **** could that be? Could you at least > document what this creature is? Do I have to read all the code, and > understand it just to get the meaning of this single cryptic line. > > > I am looking forward to get an explanation about this. And maybe someone > could start documenting the code, to make it useful again. > > > Thanks in advance. > > Greetings, Steffen > > > -- http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
