On 03 Jun 2001 21:33:48 -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote: > > %% Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > dv> The one that Paul (PDS) reported with in conjunction with > dv> FvwmAuto. Of course I still hope he'll provide some more details. > > I posted this on May 1: > > OK, I think I have more details. If I have mouse-2 bound to my > Iconify-and-Compact function: > > AddToFunc Iconify-and-Compact > + "C" Iconify > + "C" All (CurrentDesk Iconic) RecaptureWindow > > Mouse 2 I A Function Iconify-and-Compact > > then I see this behavior. It's very easy to reproduce; create an icon > box like "IconBox 2 -20 -1 -1", for example (I don't use any of the > module icon managers, just the builtin IconBox). Now place an xterm > over the icon box. Then iconify the xterm. Then click mouse-2 on the > xterm's icon in such a way that the window will appear underneath your > mouse cursor when it de-iconifies, even if you don't move it (the > mouse). > > If I change mouse-2 to run just "Iconify", I can't make it happen > anymore. > > So, maybe this behavior is no longer supported? It used to work until > fairly recently; someone on the workers list suggested it (although I > checked and it's not listed in the FAQ). > > I never heard anything so I assumed it was expected behavior.
It is not an FvwmAuto problem, it's RecaptureWindow. I can reproduce what Paul describes without FvwmAuto with FvwmAnimate. Or without FvwmAnimate, but when the original icon is already unfocused. (It is possible to get unfocussed icon under cursor if you enter it during All RecaptureWindow.) But I don't think this problem is critical for 2.4.0. I may help to fix it in 2.4.1. Restoring focus may be done explicitely by adding to Iconify-and-Compact: + C Focus NoWarp # or even: WindowId $w (!Iconic) Focus NoWarp Does anyone think this problem is critical to stop the 2.4.0 release? It also seems that a problem with not focussing of Nautilus is not critical either, it may be fixed by Style Lenience. We should move on. I think we agreed that 2.3.33 is the latest release. I want to change the next version from 2.3.34 to 2.4.0. Any objections? I also think that if we want to move, the code should be fully frozen now. Any non obvious change (even a possible fix) should be voted, anyone is able to veto if he thinks a problem is not critical to start to fix it. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
