On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:19:06AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Rhialto, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> MAYBE if we can link an event to "letting go of ALT", that could be
> bound to a new action that modifies the ring to behave like a stack.
> But I haven't looked yet how easy or hard that would be.
On Mon 08 Oct 2018 at 20:40:55 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Contrastingly, ctwm keeps the windows on a given workspace in a ring
> buffer. This requires two different keystrokes: One to navigate
> clockwise, and one to navigate counterclockwise. For whatever reason,
> even after 2 months using
> I wanted to be able to type into the partly covered window
> [...]
> It would have been intolerable to always have to bring the
> text window to the top in order to provide text input. So
> in that context, the mouse was used to interact with the
> program being tested and demonstrated and
Thanks for the latest comments. I thought I should clarify this:
AS
> > Perhaps I don't need this
> > because I set focus to follow mouse always?
SL
> Yes! It sounds to me like your interface usage is primarily mouse, but
> with some hotkeys thrown in for extra efficiency.
Not really. I like
On 10 Oct 2018, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 20:48:58 +0100
> Aaron Sloman wrote:
(snip)
>> However if the windows occupy different portions of the screen, with
>> only partial overlaps, what becomes visible will depend on where the
>> mouse pointer is.
>
> The preceding sentence is
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com
wrote:
> I switched away from Openbox, to ctwm, for about 2 months, before
> switching back to Openbox.
Ctwm was my favourite for many years (from around 1995?) but for a while I
switched to Openbox because ctwm wasn't available for some reason, or had
