On 10/10/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Client struct looks like before. However I kept the static
> initialization of ntags, seltags and the newly introduced
> prevtags. This means that third-party patches may access any
> variable except the latter ones (actually I see no reason
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:35:16PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One question to this again. Actually I can't find any official
> > reference why this should work in the C89 standard, call me
> > blind or whatever. In C99 this definately w
On 10/10/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One question to this again. Actually I can't find any official
> reference why this should work in the C89 standard, call me
> blind or whatever. In C99 this definately works.
>
> Do you have a pointer to confirm that this works with C89 as
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:29:30AM -0300, Brendan MacDonell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 23:33:44 CEST, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > You miss that seltags and Client->tags are both globally defined
> > in the same context as the tags definition. Afaik you can't
> > evaluate the sizeof operator an
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:29:30AM -0300, Brendan MacDonell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 23:33:44 CEST, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > You miss that seltags and Client->tags are both globally defined
> > in the same context as the tags definition. Afaik you can't
> > evaluate the sizeof operator an
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > and, as a side effect, knowing statically `ntags' allows to define
> > `seltags' as an array without using
> > `emallocz()'.
> > What I am missing?
> You miss that seltags and Client->tags are both globally defined
> in the same
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 23:33:44 CEST, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> You miss that seltags and Client->tags are both globally defined
> in the same context as the tags definition. Afaik you can't
> evaluate the sizeof operator and you can't perform a division
> operation in a non-functional scope, so I
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 08:17:51AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> feature by looking at the dwm code when I found:
>
> for
> (ntags = 0; tags[ntags]; ntags++);
>
> which, I suppose, is used to
> initialize the `ntags' variable. However this point is not clear to me
> since
> `tags' is st
Hi, to all.
I am not new to dwm; I am using it since a year or so.
However, I have not delved in the code till now. My
initial goal was
to add a key-binding to allow me to switch to the next/prior tag. I was
brewing the new
feature by looking at the dwm code when I found:
for
(ntags = 0; ta
