On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:54:14AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > > your votes here.
> > >
> > > Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> > > votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
> > > unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification
> > > (Dan?). For that I send an other version of the patch (attached).
> > > I've followed all the advice (I can follow) that I get in this
> > > thread. In particular, I've followed all the remarks (as I can) of
> > > Dominik regarding the code. So, Dominik I even hope you revert your
> > > vote (very little hope ...). Also: the cmds are named WindowStyle and
> > > DestroyWindowStyle and act on the selected window and there is the
> > > doc and some tests in purify.fvwm2rc.
>
> Can you please clarify one thing. You previously said that after applying
> many WindowStyle commands and switching themes the style list didn't grow.
> Do I understand you correctly? Because it is the Dominik's reason against
> the patch (you seem to cover several other reasons with your new patch).
>
Yes, with fvwm-themes I've tried to switch and add some window style,
switch and add some window style ..etc and the style list does not
grow (in a not reasonable way). However, one can succeed to found a
way for making the style list to explode (with a limited number of
name) with or without the WindowStyle command. I think you have to do
very strange things for this (with or without the WindowStyle
command).
By the way, I think we may improve a bit __simplify_style_list, by
remplacing:
if (!styles_have_same_id(*cur, *cmp))
{
blockor((char *)&interflags,
(char *)&interflags,
(char *)&cmp->flag_mask,
sizeof(style_flags));
blockor((char *)&interflags,
(char *)&interflags,
(char *)&cmp->flag_default,
sizeof(style_flags));
cmp = SGET_PREV_STYLE(*cmp);
continue;
}
by something like:
Bool one_fw_can_match_both_ids(window_style s, window_style t)
{
if (SGET_ID_HAS_WINDOW_ID(s) && SGET_ID_HAS_WINDOW_ID(t) &&
SGET_WINDOW_ID(s) != SGET_WINDOW_ID(t))
{
return False;
}
if (SGET_ID_HAS_NAME(s) && SGET_ID_HAS_NAME(t))
{
if !(there exists a string which match
SGET_NAME(s) and SGET_NAME(t))
{
return False;
}
}
return True;
}
if (!styles_have_same_id(*cur, *cmp))
{
if (one_fw_can_match_both_ids(*cur,*cmp))
{
blockor((char *)&interflags,
(char *)&interflags,
(char *)&cmp->flag_mask,
sizeof(style_flags));
blockor((char *)&interflags,
(char *)&interflags,
(char *)&cmp->flag_default,
sizeof(style_flags));
}
cmp = SGET_PREV_STYLE(*cmp);
continue;
}
but I've to think more and we have to found a cleaver algo for:
"there exists a string which match SGET_NAME(s) and SGET_NAME(t))"
Regards, Olivier
--
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]
