sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:24:12PM +0100
EOQ
I have a question: if instead of patching the layout.c file for new
layouts, each of us who created a layout patch would create a
separate file, such as:
layout_grid.c
layout_bstack.c
Do what you like, but
sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:44:14AM +0100
EOQ
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:23:53AM +0200, Alexandru E. Ungur wrote:
sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:24:12PM +0100
EOQ
I have a question: if instead of patching the layout.c file for new
|The motivation is reducing the code, grouping the functions into
|more intuitive sets and reducing the amount of exported
|functions (only because several functions have been called from
|a different object in one place - that was really annoying).
|So all in all this also reduces the call graph
if any day dwm gets into the no-more-releases state
would be nice to provide the patches inside the same tarball/repo
and include them in config.h or config.mk.
For me DWM is perfect except for the lack of the append-window patch.
But this will be really easy to re-implement thanks to the new
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:08:28AM +, David Tweed wrote:
|The motivation is reducing the code, grouping the functions into
|more intuitive sets and reducing the amount of exported
|functions (only because several functions have been called from
|a different object in one place - that was
|Hmm, actually I doubt marking drawtext as non-static will help.
|Simply because such a patch should come packed with a
|drawtitle(Client *c) function which should be located in main.c
|to easily access drawtext instead. This is because the
|drawtitle function needs to map the drawed client title
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:25:19PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:08:28AM +, David Tweed wrote:
|The motivation is reducing the code, grouping the functions into
|more intuitive sets and reducing the amount of exported
|functions (only because several functions
sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:17AM +0100
EOQ
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:22:41PM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM I wrote:
Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that
those of us who have any
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:53:45PM +0200, Alexandru E. Ungur wrote:
sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:17AM +0100
EOQ
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:22:41PM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM I wrote:
Scanning the bundles showing up
No rotation cycle between layout modes?
maybe a final {0} would be nice for this. I like to minimize the number
of keys to use.
--pancake
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that
those of us who have
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 06:19:21PM +0100, pancake wrote:
No rotation cycle between layout modes?
maybe a final {0} would be nice for this. I like to minimize the number
of keys to use.
You are right, I replaced togglelayout with setlayout(-1); now,
however setlayout can also be used as
sender: Anselm R. Garbe date: Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 05:38:24PM +0100
EOQ
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that
those of us who have any significant investment in dwm patches
are in for rough
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:39:14PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote:
extern Layout *lt; points to the current layout in use,
so all occurences of arrange(); have been replaced with
lt-arrange();, lt-symbol points to the symbol of the layout.
Consequently I renamed all occurences of mode into
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM I wrote:
Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that
those of us who have any significant investment in dwm patches
are in for rough sledding trying to track this refactoring.
To which Anselm replied with a detailed list of his changes
14 matches
Mail list logo
