On 1/20/09, andrew <alindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Specify commands as a list of argument strings?

SHCMD("put your posix compliant shell script here")

> I don't even recognize the key array as C code  ... {.v = dmenucmd} },

to use dwm you need to know the c language
..specifically c99

> Tagmasks? Why are we forcing the user to do this in binary?

why were we forcing the user to write tag labels properly?
it's not like you cannot use
#define T(n) (1<<(n))

> The website lists clarity as a feature. Clarity!

clarity + quality > userfriendlyness
(so no half-assed soltutions because users don't know c)

options:
- no config
- new config syntax
- .h as config (syntax, parser, checking,.. for free)

> As for only having to learn C code to edit the config, I know C
> reasonably well, but I get bad vibes from config.h, I think I'd rather
> try to learn Lua.

seems "reasonably well" is not enough

> I understand that a core tenet of the suckless development is
> efficiency.. but it seems to me that at some point between 3.x and 5.3

i dont think so

core tenet:
low complexity => less bugs
and
low complexity == consistent style + short code

> this usurped usability in its entirety. The concept of "the header
> file is the config file" has appeared to outlive it's sensibility.
> Let's face it, a C header was never meant to be a scalable
> configuration file for something as flexible as a tagging, tiling
> window manager.

true
may be the config should be less flexible

> now, for the user. Because, to me, dwm was primarily about getting the
> window manager out of my way, but looking at the most recent config.h,
> I can tell it won't fit that bill for me anymore.

fine
(dwm is not supposed to be configured all the time)

recommendations and solutions are welcome

Reply via email to