On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 11:14:32AM -0500, Dan Espen wrote: > Dominik Vogt <fvwm-workers@fvwm.org> writes: > > In my eyes, implementing contitional styles breaks up into three > > things: features, performance and design of the code. Here are my > > thoughts. [snip] > > 2) Performance > > > > - State dependent styles may cause serious performance > > problems since the window's style has to be checked > > whenever its state changes. Perhaps it's possible to give > > each window a flags structure that marks which states do > > not use the default style? [snip] > I don't understand the motivation for some of the more elaborate > solutions. > > Starting with a simple: > > Style [Class=XTerm,Name=dumbo*] ... > > would handle 99% of the need.
One of the most requested features is to be able to control the looks of sticky windows. This could easily be done with something like this: Style [State=Sticky] ... > I don't see how the performance would be any different than > the current wildcard matching to 3 possible names. It's performance critical because the style of a window might change every time it changes its state. > I know theres > additional logic, I just don't think it amounts to anything we have > to worry about. In some cases, there is less matching, I know thats > the way I intend to use it, Ie. just supply the class as a backup > for my xterms that I don't match by name. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20 -- 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]
