Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Mathieu Lonjaret]

I must admit, the latest drop in the bucket that made me consider that
change again is: when I unplug the external monitor from my laptop,
not only does rio not automatically switch displays properly (I have
to use my xrandr-based scripts to do that), but even after I've
switched displays, the windows haven't been scaled down.
So I end up with an acme window (that I could, and that I usually end
up resizing down manually), whose bottom is completely hidden, and as
such, so are all the stacked (acme) windows.

Anyway, I should probably first look into making rio automatically
rescale fullscreen windows when switching displays.



On 1 November 2016 at 02:23, Anthony Sorace  wrote:
> I’ve often wanted the same sorting change. I do, however, find yiyus’ 
> rationale compelling. I’d be interested in playing with it, if you try it out.
>
>> On Oct 30, 2016, at 11:16 , Mathieu Lonjaret  
>> wrote:
>>
>> yeah, good points.
>>
>> On 29 October 2016 at 00:47, yy  wrote:
>>> On 28 October 2016 at 16:23, Mathieu Lonjaret
>>>  wrote:
 Anyway, does anyone know what the rationale was for choosing to stack
 them at the bottom? Or why it would be a a bad idea to make them stack
 at the top instead?
>>>
>>> Let's suppose you have many windows in a column. When you work in one
>>> of them, you B2 it and put it on the top of the stack. Then you work
>>> on another one and it goes to the top, moving the previous one to the
>>> second position, and so on. This way, your most recently used windows
>>> are always on top, the least used ones go to the bottom of the stack.
>>> I would find counterintuitive that the windows you used a longer time
>>> ago stayed at the top, between your "working windows" and the column
>>> and main tag lines.
>>>
>>> But I would guess the main reason it works this way is that it seemed
>>> more natural to move a window to the head than to the tail of a linked
>>> list, and it just worked well enough.
>>>
>>> I see how it may be more practical to stack them at the top when
>>> working only with two or three windows, but it would be kind of weird
>>> if you have ten. If you feel it will fit your workflow better, it is
>>> probably not too difficult to get it done.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - yiyus || JGL .
>>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Anthony Sorace]

I’ve often wanted the same sorting change. I do, however, find yiyus’ rationale 
compelling. I’d be interested in playing with it, if you try it out.

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 11:16 , Mathieu Lonjaret  
> wrote:
> 
> yeah, good points.
> 
> On 29 October 2016 at 00:47, yy  wrote:
>> On 28 October 2016 at 16:23, Mathieu Lonjaret
>>  wrote:
>>> Anyway, does anyone know what the rationale was for choosing to stack
>>> them at the bottom? Or why it would be a a bad idea to make them stack
>>> at the top instead?
>> 
>> Let's suppose you have many windows in a column. When you work in one
>> of them, you B2 it and put it on the top of the stack. Then you work
>> on another one and it goes to the top, moving the previous one to the
>> second position, and so on. This way, your most recently used windows
>> are always on top, the least used ones go to the bottom of the stack.
>> I would find counterintuitive that the windows you used a longer time
>> ago stayed at the top, between your "working windows" and the column
>> and main tag lines.
>> 
>> But I would guess the main reason it works this way is that it seemed
>> more natural to move a window to the head than to the tail of a linked
>> list, and it just worked well enough.
>> 
>> I see how it may be more practical to stack them at the top when
>> working only with two or three windows, but it would be kind of weird
>> if you have ten. If you feel it will fit your workflow better, it is
>> probably not too difficult to get it done.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> - yiyus || JGL .
>> 

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Mathieu Lonjaret]

yeah, good points.

On 29 October 2016 at 00:47, yy  wrote:
> On 28 October 2016 at 16:23, Mathieu Lonjaret
>  wrote:
>> Anyway, does anyone know what the rationale was for choosing to stack
>> them at the bottom? Or why it would be a a bad idea to make them stack
>> at the top instead?
>
> Let's suppose you have many windows in a column. When you work in one
> of them, you B2 it and put it on the top of the stack. Then you work
> on another one and it goes to the top, moving the previous one to the
> second position, and so on. This way, your most recently used windows
> are always on top, the least used ones go to the bottom of the stack.
> I would find counterintuitive that the windows you used a longer time
> ago stayed at the top, between your "working windows" and the column
> and main tag lines.
>
> But I would guess the main reason it works this way is that it seemed
> more natural to move a window to the head than to the tail of a linked
> list, and it just worked well enough.
>
> I see how it may be more practical to stack them at the top when
> working only with two or three windows, but it would be kind of weird
> if you have ten. If you feel it will fit your workflow better, it is
> probably not too difficult to get it done.
>
>
> --
> - yiyus || JGL .
>

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[yy]

On 28 October 2016 at 16:23, Mathieu Lonjaret
 wrote:
> Anyway, does anyone know what the rationale was for choosing to stack
> them at the bottom? Or why it would be a a bad idea to make them stack
> at the top instead?

Let's suppose you have many windows in a column. When you work in one
of them, you B2 it and put it on the top of the stack. Then you work
on another one and it goes to the top, moving the previous one to the
second position, and so on. This way, your most recently used windows
are always on top, the least used ones go to the bottom of the stack.
I would find counterintuitive that the windows you used a longer time
ago stayed at the top, between your "working windows" and the column
and main tag lines.

But I would guess the main reason it works this way is that it seemed
more natural to move a window to the head than to the tail of a linked
list, and it just worked well enough.

I see how it may be more practical to stack them at the top when
working only with two or three windows, but it would be kind of weird
if you have ten. If you feel it will fit your workflow better, it is
probably not too difficult to get it done.


-- 
- yiyus || JGL .

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Mathieu Lonjaret]

I thought about that. you can explicitly give that preference to the
working window by fully maximizing it (i.e. making all the tags
disappear with button 3), so it didn't seem justification enough to
me. But maybe it is.


On 28 October 2016 at 16:37, Mark van Atten  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Mathieu Lonjaret
>  wrote:
>>Probably just because I'm more comfortable looking at things
>> at the top half of my screen rather than at the top bottom.
>
> Perhaps that was the very design consideration, but with preference given
> to the window in which one is working over tags of other windows.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[James A. Robinson]

I suspect one reason for placing the stack at the bottom is that it gives
you a consistent area to target, at the top, when going back to work on your
primary window.  If they were stacked top down then, depending on how many
files you had open, you might have to more carefully target how to get back
to your primary edit window.

Jim

Re: [9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Mark van Atten]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Mathieu Lonjaret
 wrote:
>Probably just because I'm more comfortable looking at things
> at the top half of my screen rather than at the top bottom.

Perhaps that was the very design consideration, but with preference given
to the window in which one is working over tags of other windows.

Mark.

[9fans] acme tag bars stacking

[Mathieu Lonjaret]

Hi,

I regularly feel slightly tempted to modify (p9p) acme so that, when a
window is maximized with button 2, the other windows tags would stack
to the top of the column, instead of to the bottom. I find that, them
being on the bottom makes it harder for me to find back a particular
window. Probably just because I'm more comfortable looking at things
at the top half of my screen rather than at the top bottom. It's also
how other GUIs behave: e.g. your browser tags are at the top of the
window.

Anyway, does anyone know what the rationale was for choosing to stack
them at the bottom? Or why it would be a a bad idea to make them stack
at the top instead?

tia,
Mathieu