On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:55:54PM +0100, 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.
And neither is urxvt, the program in question here, as I pointed out, so
whatever your agrument is trying to point out, it's definitely in favour
of the WM.
> Is it just a desktop calculator, or are you writing your thesis
> there? The WM doesn't know.
The wm is perfectly capable of distinguishing desktop calculators and word
processing programs, though.
So your argument again strengthens the case for doing this in the WM,
which can be configured by the user for this kind of thing, while your
desktop calculator cannot.
> > 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! :)
I don't think little of it, but I would prefer if you actually tried
to argue rationally instead of trying to appeal to my emotions to get
something It seriously undermines your position if you resort to that kind
of thing.
> 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
> connection in a third. When you accidentally alt-F4 urxvt, all of
> these programs get killed without a second chance (HUPed I assume).
This is completely made-up, sorry, this is not at all what happens.
Even if, the programs can do whatever they like when they are eventually
informed about their tty having gone. Vim for example let's you reover your
text, and I am sure most other editors and similar programs let you do that.
And as for your example, neither ssh not elinks know whether you have
unsaved contents, so again the WM solution is much preferable.
> But they don't get a chance to do that, urxvt overrides their
> protections and takes them down with itself: data loss. A simple
urxvt does no such thing, of course.
> (optional) "Are you sure?" confirmation request would prevent it.
Best implemented in the WM, as you nicely explained.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
