On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:16:12PM -0400, "Benjamin R. Haskell"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.)
If all else fails, one can always catch the delete event by intercepting,
but there actually is a on_wm_delete_window hook that one can catch.
I wouldn't have a problem with a perl extension that asked for
confirmation for example (as long as it follows the coding style and comes
with documentation - my main problem these days is that I get lots of
feature requests that clearly need a lot of work to be ready, and when I
ask for that to be done, it almost never happens).
> 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
Main problem with with that indeed - it doesn't really scale to add
something to every program that could as wlel be handled by the wm (there
are currently a lot more simple client programs out there than wm's).
--
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
