On 7 October 2010 14:55, Mihai Basa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Marc Lehmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Any function that you want to apply to random windows should go into the wm. >> that's what it is for - managing windows. > > No WM is wise enough to know whether the window you are closing has > any data to lose. Is it just a desktop calculator, or are you writing > your thesis there? The WM doesn't know. The application does, and it's > the one that should ask for confirmation before discarding user data.
Point of principal. I can't believe I'm having to go off-topic here, but FVWM has a FvwmEvent module which allows you to trap XEvents, which will allow you to run xmessage or some other program to first make you sure you *really* mean to close this program. Likewise, there is also the "!Closable" style condition. No, I am not intereted in WM wars here -- I am proving to you that the responsibility really *is* at the WM level. That some applications *choose* to enforce a "are you sure you really want to quit" dialogue windows is down to that application -- but it's not gospel. This is why any sane WM will allow for it in some way, and if yours doesn't, find a better one. >> It might make a difference for a program that is in different states and >> knows it has valuable data to lose, but urxvt is not such a program. > > I'm suprised you think so little of urxvt! :) > Here's a scenario: you can be composing an email in elinks in one tab, > writing code in vim/emacs in another and have ssh proxying a This is what tmux is for. Whining for it here isn't going to help you -- you could have since gone away and invested the time adding such functionality into evilwm. -- Thomas Adam _______________________________________________ rxvt-unicode mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
