On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:02:38PM +, Riccardo Murri wrote:
I like this `proceed` idea, although binding it to a layout in
config.h seems not the correct way to go -- each layout has its own
specific `proceed` function, which is not a configurable option.
I can imagine doing it this way:
Hi!
I created a different behavior of the istile-check. I think a layout
should decide itself if it is a tiling or a non-tiling layout. I
removed the ISTILE declaration and replaced it by a variable which is
set by the layout functions.
What do you think about this?
--
http://www.gnuffy.org -
On 10/27/07, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I created a different behavior of the istile-check. I think a layout
should decide itself if it is a tiling or a non-tiling layout. I
removed the ISTILE declaration and replaced it by a variable which is
set by the layout
This is also possible. But my intention was that the user does not
decide wheather a function is tile or non-tile. It is the choice of
the programmer.
2007/10/27, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 10/27/07, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I created a different behavior
On 10/27/07, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is also possible. But my intention was that the user does not
decide wheather a function is tile or non-tile. It is the choice of
the programmer.
Right, didn't look at it that way. Now that we're talking about
ISTILE, I think
Il 2007-10-27, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
I could imagine a proceed() function which each layout
should implement a la:
Bool
proceed(void (*func)(const char *)) {
if(isarrange(tile))
return func == setmwfact
|| func == zoom
Hi Sander,
Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/27/07, Enno Gottox Boland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is also possible. But my intention was that the user does not
decide wheather a function is tile or non-tile. It is the choice of
the programmer.
Right, didn't look at it
