Works perfectly well. Thanks again Thierry
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Jeremy Jay <[email protected]> wrote: > not incredibly difficult to modify the existing tile() function for > this.... this isnt the most up-to-date version of dwm, but plop > something similar to this into your config.h > > ------------------- > > static void > htile(void) { > int y, h; > unsigned int i, n; > Client *c; > > for(n = 0, c = nexttiled(clients); c; c = nexttiled(c->next), n++); > if(n == 0) > return; > > /* tile stack */ > y = wy; > h = wh / n; > if(h < bh) > h = wh; > > for(i = 0, c = nexttiled(clients); c; c = nexttiled(c->next), i++) { > resize(c, wx, y, ww - 2 * c->bw, /* remainder */ ((i + 1 == > n) > ? wy + wh - y - 2 * c->bw : h - 2 * c->bw), > resizehints); > if(h != wh) > y = c->y + HEIGHT(c); > } > } > > static Layout layouts[] = { > /* symbol arrange function */ > { "[]=", tile }, /* first entry is default */ > { "===", htile }, /* horizontal tile */ > { "><>", NULL }, /* no layout function means floating > behavior */ > { "[M]", monocle }, > }; > > --------------------- > > On Mon 09 Feb 2009 - 02:26PM, James Turner wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:19:05PM -0500, thierry beauquier wrote: > > > Do you remenber when it was and if it was the same patch's name?? This > would > > > help my googling :-) > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM, James Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:01:03PM -0500, thierry beauquier wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Is there a patch to have pure horizontal tiling? > > > > > > > > > > Meaning: > > > > > > > > > > +--------------------------+ > > > > > | | > > > > > +--------------------------+ > > > > > | | > > > > > +--------------------------+ > > > > > | | > > > > > +--------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, James Turner <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:25:41AM -0500, David Neu wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was just about to download the bottom stack patch for > dwm-5.4.1 > > > > from, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.suckless.org/dwm/patches/bottom_stack.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but noticed it's dated 20081217. Is this correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello there, I create a new bottom stack patch against hg the > minute > > > > > > something changes and tag it for the up coming release. It should > apply > > > > > > fine to 5.4.1 as well but I havent tested it. Let me know if you > have > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > James Turner > > > > > > BSD Group Consulting > > > > > > http://www.bsdgroup.org > > > > > > > > I believe the original bottom stack patch did support that, when I > kind > > > > of took over keeping it up to date I dropped that support since I > didn't > > > > use it. You might be able to find an older patch via google that > still > > > > has the behavior and bring it up to date. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > James Turner > > > > BSD Group Consulting > > > > http://www.bsdgroup.org > > > > I don't remember how many dwm's ago it was but the format should be the > > same as dwm-5.4-bstack.diff. Maybe look in the 3 or earlier 4 releases? > > > > -- > > James Turner > > BSD Group Consulting > > http://www.bsdgroup.org > > > >
