On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Mihai Basa wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Adam wrote:
On 7 October 2010 14:55, Mihai Basa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Marc Lehmann 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.
If you are "proving" this to me why did you pick FVWM for your
example? Is it maybe because you don't know of any other major window
manager that has this feature? What would you say *that* proves?
Just because GNOME and KDE don't have this doesn't make it unreasonable
to expect the WM to handle it. "Major" WMs don't really do much to
"manage" windows.
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
I asked for pointers on how to implement this myself from the very
beginning. If asking for help on contributing to the project and
arguing my position is considered "whining", then going away is
exactly what I'll do.
If you can ignore the hostility with which most suggestions are met on
the rxvt-unicode list, it's actually quite nice. Generally the backlash
has reason behind it. And for this particular feature, it seems like
there's about a 0% chance of getting this into the official version.
In any case, if you really want the misfeature, the documentation for
the on_destroy Perl hook seems to indicate that returning a true value
will treat the event as 'consumed'. But, a quick test, adding this to
an existing plugin of mine:
sub on_destroy { 1 }
Seems to indicate that it doesn't work. (Adding a print to a file shows
that it's getting called, but the boolean-true return value doesn't seem
to matter.)
Regardless, even if you don't handle it at the WM level, it still seems
easier to handle at a level higher than urxvt. Right now you want this
feature in urxvt, next you'll want it in some other program, slippery
slope, yada yada. If you instead write some program to wrap an
arbitrary program window in this way (urxvt supports XEmbed), you'd be
better off.
--
Best,
Ben
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
