Matthias-Christian Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Anselm R Garbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2008/8/2 Ian Daniher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > BTW, a friend and I came up with the idea, that it would be useful to > > > have some visual hint of how many windows you are actually viewing in > > > monocle. Say, there are five windows with currently viewed tag and > > > you're viewing the third window in the stack; then there could be an > > > indicator like: [3/5] or [..*..]. What do you guys think about that? > > > > This idea is rather old and it was implemented once in some official > > version of dwm. However, because it is only interesting for 1 > > particular layout, namely monocle, it has been removed again. AFAIR > > the solution to the problem was a change to the Layout struct, instead > > of defining a simple symbol string for the layout, I used some > > function pointer which returned the layout symbol string. > > > > When using this indicator for some time, I concluded that it wasn't > > obvious enough to be useful, especially because the information "nth > > client of X clients" doesn't give you much -- you rarely remember the > > client order anyways. > > > > Because of the fact that dwm is a dynamic window manager, my > > recommended solution is to switch to some appropriate layout before > > you focus the particular client you are looking for, and then > > switching to monocle again. > > > > So, the way I use monocle is usually only on a client basis or on very > > few clients -- there is the powerful tagging concept for grouping the > > clients you work on. > > > > With this in mind, this idea won't go mainstream again ;) > > > > > Also, implementing the alt-tab to switch between the windows on that tab > > > would seem to make sense. > > > > The philosophy behind dwm and all other less suckish projects I'm > > involved in follows the idea that there should be only 1 distinct > > operation to perform a certain function. If any feature of some > > software can only and always be performed in using 1 distinct > > operation (which never changes), then it is easier to remember and to > > use. Hence one indicator of bad software design is if there are plenty > > ways performing the same operation (e.g. having an icon to click on, a > > shortcut, a menu entry, a context menu entry, another shortcut, etc). > > This indication applies to vim unfortunately -- there is :wq and ZZ > > and what not for instance -- it basically performs the same > > operations, polluting your command space unnecessarily and making you > > think a lot which is the fastest way to perform a certain operation in > > a certain situation, that sucks). > > > > The only exception regarding the 1 distinct operation paradigm is to > > allow only 1 distinct different way in performing it, if there is a > > different input device, like the mouse. > > > > Having two key bindings for the same thing also makes the usage less > > consistent, because Mod1-Tab (in default setup) has a totally > > different meaning. So IMHO Mod1-j/Mod1-k are the navigation shortcuts > > in all layouts (at least in default setup). > > > > And if you are unhappy with this, feel free to change it in config.h. > > > > Kind regards, > > --Anselm > :q!
Sorry just thought that I was in vi ;). Just wanted to add that I didn't know about Mod1-j and Mod1-k in monocle. Thanks for the explaination - now it makes sense to me. Regards Matthias-Christian Regards Matthias-Christian
