On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 10:48:38PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 03:40:26PM -0400, Bob Woodside wrote: > > > > In looking through all the focus code recently I was reminded of > > something that has puzzled me for some time. Does anyone know a really > > good reason why the window list is reordered two different ways on a > > focus change, depending on whether the newly-focused window is > > ClickToFocus or MouseFocus? > > > > (If the newly-focused window is MouseFocus, that window is plucked out > > of the list and inserted at the top, so the list reflects the order of > > most- to least-recently focused windows; if the newly-focused window is > > ClickToFocus, the list is effectivel rotated so that the target window > > is at the top, but the relative order remains the same.) > > > > This goes way back to the Version 1 days, when the focus policies were > > an all-or-nothing proposition (i.e., not Style options), and > > ClickToFocus mode didn't reorder the window list on a focus change. I > > don't remember what the reason for this was, but I question whether it's > > really useful to try to preserve this behavior. Since you can have a > > mixed-mode configuration (i.e., some mousey-focus windows and some > > clicky), this just seems to engender confusion about the meaning of the > > window list order. In fact, it really isn't meaningful if you have > > different focus policies in effect for different windows. > > > > Any ideas? > > I'm at a loss. Basically, ClickToFocus keeps the windows in the > order they were created while mousey focus uses the order in which > they were last focused. While the CTF behaviour is more > predictable when Alt-Tab'ing through the window list, the mousey > focus order seems to be more natural to me. The distinction seems > useless to me. No reason why two concurrent approaches should be > maintained. Perhaps its simply a Mwm compatibility issue?
I don't know where this comes from either, but I've always vaguely wished that ClickToFocus would use last-focus order and wondered why it didn't. It always seemed like a bug, but not one I could nail down enough to look into. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mikehan.com/ coffee achiever San Francisco, California Unix *is* user friendly. It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are. -- 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]
