Okay, I revisited the patch and made some improvements.
- variable names should be saner.
- the status bar now shows the number of windows hidden instead of
the actual cpt value.
_r
diff -r 32c4d4563805 config.h
--- a/config.h Thu Oct 25 19:24:28 2007 -0400
+++ b/config.h Fri Oct 26
I was just wondering how many people here use Jan's taglayouts patch.
Personally, I won't upgrade to a new version of dwm unless that patch
has been updated as well (or if I can update it myself). I find it
indispensable. I guess what I'm getting at is if you guys think it
should be included in
On 10/26/07, Jeremy O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just wondering how many people here use Jan's taglayouts patch.
Personally, I won't upgrade to a new version of dwm unless that patch
has been updated as well (or if I can update it myself). I find it
indispensable. I guess what I'm
It is already on the wiki:
http://herbst.homeunix.org/~jceb/dwm/4.6/current/dwm-4.6-taglayouts.diff
I never had the need to use this patch. But for my eyes this patch needs
more work. it's using dynamic memory allocation for something that it is
already static and defined in config.h.
I use the patch, simply because i rarely mix tags and because i want
to float an entire tag without affecting the others.
Maarten.
On 10/26/07, pancake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw if we use a diferent layout per tag we should probably also
support a different mwfactor per tag too in the same
Btw if we use a diferent layout per tag we should probably also
support a different mwfactor per tag too in the same way.
btw i continue saying that I don't like this idea at all.
PD: I have updated the kiwi with the patch:
http://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm/patches/taglayouts
On Fri, 26 Oct
On 10/26/07, Maarten Maathuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use the patch, simply because i rarely mix tags and because i want
to float an entire tag without affecting the others.
same here
i use tile (actually a modified bottomstack) and fullscreen layout.
i always view one tag (ie. workspaces
Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it shouldn't, for the simple reason that it doesn't fit within the
tagging paradigm.
You're right, it doesn't really. I would characterise this patch (and
variants such as the one I use) as changing the underlying paradigm from
pure tagging to
Hi List,
Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider the idea of having a Button struct for 4.7.
Thank you for your reply Anselm.
One thing made me curious; do you already have an idea how to adress
this:?
How to give a client * to a handler?
Or do you plan not to buttonstruct
This is why I use it too. Some windows just don't like to be tiled.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:15:57PM +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
I use the patch, simply because i rarely mix tags and because i want
to float an entire tag without affecting the others.
Maarten.
On 10/26/07, pancake
Jan Christoph Ebersbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri 26-10-2007 17:09 +0100, Chris Webb wrote:
Incidentally, something else needed for consistency when implementing
taglayouts-type behaviour is to index all the layout parameters like
mwfact, nmaster (if you have it) and
Chris Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
insert a
free(mwfact);
into cleanup()
You don't need this bit with a static mwfact[NTAGS] of course. D'oh.
Edited my email after writing to reflect the fact that dwm has gone
static but didn't delete the unnecessary free().
Best wishes,
Chris.
On Fri 26-10-2007 16:56 +0200, pancake wrote:
I never had the need to use this patch. But for my eyes this patch needs
more work. it's using dynamic memory allocation for something that it is
already static and defined in config.h.
-unsigned int* ltidxs;
+unsigned int ltidxs[NTAGS];
Thank
Robert Figura [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
uh. that was a bit rude i'd say. strange moods today. sorry.
regards and keep up the good work.
- Robert Figura
14 matches
Mail list logo
