At 1252070161 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> First patch fixes some valgrind "invalid access" errors and second one fixes a
> valgrind "leaked fd" warning (libev leaked its epoll and signalfd file
> descriptors).
Good catch, all in!
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰhttp://julien.danjou.info
//
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
First patch fixes some valgrind "invalid access" errors and second one fixes a
valgrind "leaked fd" warning (libev leaked its epoll and signalfd file
descriptors).
Uli
- --
"Do you know that books smell like nutmeg or some spice from a foreign
Yeah, no. Also, please facts rather than speculation.
2009/6/8 Ángel Alonso :
> On 08/06/09 06:04, Andrei Thorp wrote:
> Lua's actually one of the best-performing scripting languages out
> there, actually much faster than Python.
>
> I don't think so.
> Also, we're not exactly doing 3D games here.
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:05:44PM -0700, Ángel Alonso wrote:
> [...]
> I don't think so.
Why not? Because it is not as well known as python? In my experience (of
which I have quite a lot), Lua is indeed one of the fastest scripting
languages. Maybe I'm wrong here and it is all placebo, but if you
On 08/06/09 06:04, Andrei Thorp wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM,
Guerrier-cachalot wrote:
And the speed ?? And the memory footprint ?? Ô developpers of Awesome, don't
make this awful mistake. If you want a WM entirely written in hig-level
langage, rewrite it in Ada or java, or use pyw
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM,
Guerrier-cachalot wrote:
> And the speed ?? And the memory footprint ?? Ô developpers of Awesome, don't
> make this awful mistake. If you want a WM entirely written in hig-level
> langage, rewrite it in Ada or java, or use pywm.
Lua's actually one of the best-perfor
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:00 AM,
Guerrier-cachalot wrote:
> Can I know what your memory ?
> Else, you've convinced me .
I have 3 GB of memory in this machine, but according to
gnome-system-monitor, that 0.3% is 3.6 MB. Gnome-system-monitor itself
is reporting 4.6 MB for itself.
Of course, memory's
Guerrier-cachalot yazmış:
[...]
> rewrite it in Ada or java,
please die
--
Regards,
Ali Polatel
pgpfyRFHKEgYW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
And the speed ?? And the memory footprint ?? Ô developpers of Awesome, don't
make this awful mistake. If you want a WM entirely written in hig-level
langage, rewrite it in Ada or java, or use pywm.
There is a certain flexibility that comes with C, so i don't see if
disappearing completely.
Maarten.
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to awesome-devel-unsubscr...@naquadah.org.
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 09:08:29PM +0200, calmar c. wrote:
> [...]
> Another question: wouldn't it the be wise according to this, to
> e.g. write the whole wm in a high-level language (lua, python or
> something)? They normally always have this kind of positive
> features compared to C.
> [...]
As
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 10:45:54PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi Julien,
> There's no reason to keep this both in the C core. Not at all.
> Rewritting them in Lua make them:
> - better documented;
> - more maintainable;
> - more evolutive;
> - more error proof.
Another question: wouldn't it the
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 10:45:54PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244317804 time_t, Marco Candrian wrote:
> > then again, the C code seemed to have worked nicely. It's also a
> > seperate file etc. - nothing to care for all the time?
>
> awesome's code works. I'm sorry that people feel sad when
At 1244317804 time_t, Marco Candrian wrote:
> then again, the C code seemed to have worked nicely. It's also a
> seperate file etc. - nothing to care for all the time?
Not really. That's evolution: adapt or die. And that's how every part of
awesome's code works. I'm sorry that people feel sad when
At 1244314087 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> Hm, dunno. Just skip that part of the patch, fine with me.. (yeah, you are
> right, as always)
Ok, pushed without that part. :)
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰhttp://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
// Life i
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 08:08:28PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> No, it's about code maintainability. 200 SLOC of Lua beats - by large -
> more than 1 K SLOC of C. :-)
then again, the C code seemed to have worked nicely. It's also a
seperate file etc. - nothing to care for all the time?
I actuall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244292328 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>> I'm just a human Attached is a New and Improved (tm) version of this
>> first
>> patch.
>
> Me too, ignore my previous mail.
>
>> ---
>> lib/awful/wibox.lua.in | 11 +
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 08:35:19PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244311597 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> > Maybe I should write awful.widget.layout.sameplace then which draws all
> > its widgets onto the same space. I'd be grateful for test cases, because
> > my experience with graph and progres
At 1244311597 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> Maybe I should write awful.widget.layout.sameplace then which draws all
> its widgets onto the same space. I'd be grateful for test cases, because
> my experience with graph and progressbar widgets is nearly nil
Hum, IIRC 'sameplace' algo was the default
At 1244292328 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> I'm just a human Attached is a New and Improved (tm) version of this first
> patch.
Me too, ignore my previous mail.
> ---
> lib/awful/wibox.lua.in | 11 +--
> wibox.c|4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 d
At 1244286306 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> If a wibox with non-north geometry was created and a wibox size was specified,
> this function happily ignored it when it made the wibox fit.
>
> The hunk in wibox.c partly reverts 7cc0b13eae2638aaab40bfd1632036a6bea4d8d4.
> No idea if this is a good i
At 1244310805 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> You would also have saved quite a few LOCs if you implemented the new
> progressbar and graphs in C. You would have saved even more LOCs if you just
> removed all the widgets I mean, it's all about code size, isn't it? (dwm,
> anyone?)
No, it's abo
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 07:59:45PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244310858 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> > Only if imageboxes and their drawing code support transparency :) Else
> > the last-drawn graph would completely occlude the first-drawn which
> > would make the first-drawn invisible
>
>
At 1244310858 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> Only if imageboxes and their drawing code support transparency :) Else
> the last-drawn graph would completely occlude the first-drawn which
> would make the first-drawn invisible
It does, you should know that. ;-)
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰhttp://julien
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 07:50:08PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244307769 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> > I think Uli means not stacking two graphs on top of each other, which is
> > certainly possible with widget layouts, but he means superimposing two
> > graphs so that they are both drawn in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244306622 time_t, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> You help Gregor? Or stay with 3.3 or the old widget for the time being.
>
> FWIW, I don't think like I need to justificate what I did, but removing
> the progressbar and graph from
At 1244307769 time_t, Gregor Best wrote:
> I think Uli means not stacking two graphs on top of each other, which is
> certainly possible with widget layouts, but he means superimposing two
> graphs so that they are both drawn in the same space.
This is what I understand too. Seems possible to me a
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 06:41:01PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244300756 time_t, Marco Candrian wrote:
> > the graph has more than one thing. You can use a line style to
> > have one over all others.
>
> You would be able to do the same with the widget layouts, AFAIU.
>
I think Uli means n
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 06:42:22PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244305993 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> > @Julien: Apropos, any reason why we can't have 'scale = true'? Would you
> > mind a
> > patch which adds this back, too? And if we have auto-scaling, adding back
> > max_value (currentl
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 06:33:13PM +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
[...]
> > ["fg_center"] = beautiful.gr_cpu_nice_center,
> > ["fg_end"] = beautiful.gr_cpu_nice_end,
> > ["vertical_gradient"] = true,
> > ["scale"] = false,
> > ["max_value"] = "100.0",
> > ["style"] = "line"
> > })
>
> Th
At 1244306622 time_t, Julien Danjou wrote:
> You help Gregor? Or stay with 3.3 or the old widget for the time being.
FWIW, I don't think like I need to justificate what I did, but removing
the progressbar and graph from the C side will drop around 1K SLOC,
which is just around 8 % of core size. A
At 1244303844 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> And if I want this now and not in 6 months?
You help Gregor? Or stay with 3.3 or the old widget for the time being.
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰhttp://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
// And thinking so mu
At 1244305993 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> @Julien: Apropos, any reason why we can't have 'scale = true'? Would you mind
> a
> patch which adds this back, too? And if we have auto-scaling, adding back
> max_value (currently it requires values between 0 and 1) wouldn't be much work
> either
At 1244300756 time_t, Marco Candrian wrote:
> the graph has more than one thing. You can use a line style to
> have one over all others.
You would be able to do the same with the widget layouts, AFAIU.
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰhttp://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
calmar c. wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
>>> Let's see which other patches I will come up with... (Anyone wants to
>>> enhance
>>> awful.widget.*? vertical progressbars and graphs with more than one graph
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Julien Danjou wrote:
> At 1244286306 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>> I'm currently trying to make my config work with current master. One thing I
>> found: awful.widget.graph and .progressbar don't offer the same features
>> their C
>> counterparts
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
>
> > Let's see which other patches I will come up with... (Anyone wants to
> > enhance
> > awful.widget.*? vertical progressbars and graphs with more than one graph
> > sound
> > like a goal (I use one graph which shows used mem and
At 1244286306 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> I'm currently trying to make my config work with current master. One thing I
> found: awful.widget.graph and .progressbar don't offer the same features
> their C
> counterparts had. I'll see if I write some patches on this...
Like ?
> Let's see which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Uli Schlachter wrote:
> The first patch makes awful.wibox() work with non-north orientation and
> user-specified geometries.
I'm just a human Attached is a New and Improved (tm) version of this first
patch.
Cheers,
Uli
- --
"Do you know that bo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I'm currently trying to make my config work with current master. One thing I
found: awful.widget.graph and .progressbar don't offer the same features their C
counterparts had. I'll see if I write some patches on this...
The first patch makes aw
40 matches
Mail list logo
