Here's my version of a bitarray patch. Please review and comment.
2008/5/20, yy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/20, Premysl Hruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
This is realization of Gottox's proposal discuted on IRC today.
It handles tags not as Bool [], but as bit-array saved in int.
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i deliberately used an alternative definition of freedom (and included
all the dictatorship), because it makes sense to me.
Well, I guess that sums it all up nicely. I think that at this point
further argument is obviously
Hi!
2008/5/21, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in config.h referencing tags has changed in rules but not in keys.
Yes, arg has discussed yesterday if it's possible to change const char
*arg to void *arg. if this works, i'll change the key behavior too.
the (1 tagnum) in rules is a bit nasty
On (21/05/08 08:27), Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
To: dynamic window manager dwm@suckless.org
From: Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dwm] using bitaray for tags (PATCH)
Reply-To: dynamic window manager dwm@suckless.org
List-Id: dynamic window manager dwm.suckless.org
Here's
On 5/21/08, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the (1 tagnum) in rules is a bit nasty
it is probably nicer to do the shifting in setup();
you mean in applyrules? - No I don't think so. It adds much more
flexibility. You can define bitmasks as 0b10001 to tag a client to the
first
2008/5/21, Premysl Hruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tagmask can be #define:
#define TAGMASK ((int)(1LL (LENGTH(tags) + 1) - 1))
Thanks! Here's the updated patch
--
http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
diff -r
Hi I like your patches (also the version of anydot).
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:49:16AM +0200, Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
2008/5/21, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in config.h referencing tags has changed in rules but not in keys.
Yes, arg has discussed yesterday if it's possible to change
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]:
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition?
[...]
That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in
another way than you, you hiro can curse on public
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]:
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition?
[...]
That's our freedom (in your definition).
That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in
another way than you, you hiro can curse on public mailing lists, and I
can decide to stop discussing with people who swear and get personal.
This is not politics, it's the internet, boy. Though you could nee
some
Premysl Hruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is realization of Gottox's proposal discuted on IRC today.
It handles tags not as Bool [], but as bit-array saved in int.
I read, that bit-arrays are not very portable between different
architectures. (It was in The practice of programming, I think)
On (21/05/08 12:06), markus schnalke wrote:
To: dwm@suckless.org
From: markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dwm] using bitaray for tags (PATCH)
Mail-Followup-To: dwm@suckless.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Reply-To: dynamic window manager dwm@suckless.org
List-Id:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:14:27PM +0200, Premysl Hruby wrote:
That's the reason why i wrote it as macros. That bitops can also be
written as inline functions, without any harm to binary size or
performance.
And yes, with bitarrays there are some portability issues. But asside of
limiting
On 5/21/08, markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read, that bit-arrays are not very portable between different
architectures. (It was in The practice of programming, I think)
it's not exactly a bit array (arbitrary number of bits implemented eg.
as char array), it's only one int (with bit
Hi Anselm,
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:13:35PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
please recheck attached version of setmwname as a binary with
the JDK grey blob issue.
Use
; ./setwmname LG3D
and see if it works. If so, then consider this for getting rid
of Xmonad patches as well.
For me
On (20/05/08 11:22), Kurt H Maier wrote:
To: dynamic window manager dwm@suckless.org
From: Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C has bitfield support inside structs:
unsigned tagsapplied :8;
and replace 8 with whatever value you want
Not really with whatever value, only that values so whole
Here is yet another update to the patch which includes chances
discussed on #dwm.
2008/5/21, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi I like your patches (also the version of anydot).
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:49:16AM +0200, Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
2008/5/21, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL
There was a mistake in config.def.h. Here's the fixed on.
2008/5/21, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
I added the void *arg feature to dwm and diffed it together with the
other changes. Please review the patch carefully, as I changed a lot.
Thanks!
2008/5/21, Enno Gottox
18 matches
Mail list logo
