Tako rzecze Bill Puschmann (w e-mailu datowanym 2006-11-30, 15:34):
> Perhaps some sort of shell magic to get all pipes correct? I'm just not
> sure.
OK, here goes my solution, rather similar to the other ones, but you may
or may not like it more (script attached).
I run the script without argu
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:34:03PM -0500, Bill Puschmann wrote:
> I'm curious if it would even be possible to allow typing into dmenu before
> the "tab-completion" fields being piped in are populated.
I'm using a cache mechanism -- see my dwm-patches[1]:
Step a)
---
when I start dwm, I remov
* Bill Puschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061130 23:35]:
> I'm curious if it would even be possible to allow typing into dmenu before
> the "tab-completion" fields being piped in are populated.
>
> The current setup/expected configuration is to compile and sort a list of
> executables - which is great
I'm curious if it would even be possible to allow typing into dmenu before
the "tab-completion" fields being piped in are populated.
The current setup/expected configuration is to compile and sort a list of
executables - which is great when I'm not in the middle of something
processor intensive.
I find the status area very useful - I've got a lua script feeding dwm
stdin via fifo and showing me a handy summary [1] of the things I often
want to know [2]. Sometimes there are things I really want to be
reminded of, but which don't deserve a whole window of their own.
What I'd like for th
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:01:15AM +1300, Karl. wrote:
> I wondered if the tag-used indicator could be an underline instead, to
> reduce the load on my aging brain? Or something else, maybe - I'm not
> convinced that an underline is a better option than dots - I'd just like
> something more dif
I find the tag-used dots to be a handy thing, but I was wondering if it
is possible to use something more visually-distinct than dots. Looking
quickly at the tag area, there are dots for tag-used and dots for
client-tags - recognising which is which takes a small amount of
attention.
I wonder
Ross Mohn wrote:
>
> The Bottom Stack Patch for dwm-2.4 is now available in taggi.
Excellent stuff. Thanks.
> I've
> removed my convenience binding of viewall() to mouse Button2; the lower
> right corner tag label dots make the viewall() function unnecessary for
> me now.
I still use viewall()
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Ross Mohn wrote:
> The Bottom Stack Patch for dwm-2.4 is now available in taggi. I've
> removed my convenience binding of viewall() to mouse Button2; the lower
> right corner tag label dots make the viewall() function unnecessary for
> me now. I also used a
Tako rzecze Anselm R. Garbe (w e-mailu datowanym 2006-11-30, 15:05):
> kwin uses the so called startup-notifcation X extension, which
> is no option for dwm... Also, X does not provide any information
Yeah, I thought it was making use of that library.
> Yes, define a rule for such apps, that the
The Bottom Stack Patch for dwm-2.4 is now available in taggi. I've
removed my convenience binding of viewall() to mouse Button2; the lower
right corner tag label dots make the viewall() function unnecessary for
me now. I also used a few more ternary expressions in order to reduce
the number of chan
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 02:57:43PM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> Tako rzecze [EMAIL PROTECTED] (w e-mailu datowanym 2006-11-30, 14:32):
> > Anyway, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but wouldn't it be
> > a little more consistent to apply the tag that is viewed when a program
> > is st
Tako rzecze Anselm R. Garbe (w e-mailu datowanym 2006-11-30, 14:55):
> Yea, and that's exactly _the_ argument against my proposal.
> Forget everything I proposed, things will stay like they are. I
> believe I should really concentrate on st now ;)
I think you most definitely should. dwm has alrea
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:41:45PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> functionality. I do this in my stuff by pushing/popping to temporary tags,
> but if you're thinking about stuff from the foundations then considering
> whether there's a better way to acheive this "temporary subset" effect.
One would n
Tako rzecze [EMAIL PROTECTED] (w e-mailu datowanym 2006-11-30, 14:32):
Hi,
> Anyway, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but wouldn't it be
> a little more consistent to apply the tag that is viewed when a program
> is started instead of the tag that is viewed when the program pops up?
>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:46:54PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> |Anyway, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but wouldn't it be
> |a little more consistent to apply the tag that is viewed when a program
> |is started instead of the tag that is viewed when the program pops up?
>
> Just a no
|Anyway, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but wouldn't it be
|a little more consistent to apply the tag that is viewed when a program
|is started instead of the tag that is viewed when the program pops up?
Just a note about "the tag" people are talking about: unless multi-viewing
is re
|d)
|function | toggle | no toggle
|-
|tag |- | X
|view |X | X
|
|This is the opposite of the wmii approach, it allows only 1 tag
|pro client, but viewing up to all tags at the same time.
|Actually I consider this approach bei
> Tagging them with the first tag the user views
> after this situation seems kind of arbitrary to me (what indication is
> there that this window has any relation with the group I'm selecting
> for viewing?).
What about introducing a default "untagged" tag for clients which appear
when no tag is
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:42:25PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:36:09PM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Gottox, after all I think, there is no need to change anything,
> > >except your shortcuts. I don't th
Ok, I add this patch to my own patchset. I think this is the best way
because no one but me is using this...
2006/11/30, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:36:09PM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Gottox, afte
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:36:09PM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Gottox, after all I think, there is no need to change anything,
> >except your shortcuts. I don't think that toggleview() needs the
> >change that an empty view is necessary
On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gottox, after all I think, there is no need to change anything,
except your shortcuts. I don't think that toggleview() needs the
change that an empty view is necessary. I currently test
toggleview() as it is in dwm-2.4 with swapped shortcuts
On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The old behavior can be achieved through untoggling the current
tag and then toggling another, - at least to me it feels better
than not getting rid of the last tag if there is no view() at
all.
The problem I have with this is the changed s
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:16:13PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:54:20AM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > >> I know, but where do these win
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:54:20AM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> >> I know, but where do these windows go in the meantime? Are they on
> >> screen, or invisible? Tagging t
On 11/30/06, Enno Gottox Boland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I love it!
Well, there's no arguing against that :-)
Anyway, I think view() should stay.
So do I.
Greetings, Sander.
I love it!
Anyway, I think view() should stay.
2006/11/30, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:54:20AM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 11/30/06, Enno Gottox Boland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The idea is to tag them to the selected tag, when the user v
On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:54:20AM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> I know, but where do these windows go in the meantime? Are they on
> screen, or invisible? Tagging them with the first tag the user views
They are invisible until a tag is s
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:54:20AM +0100, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 11/30/06, Enno Gottox Boland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The idea is to tag them to the selected tag, when the user views a tag
> >again.
>
> I know, but where do these windows go in the meantime? Are they on
> sc
Hello,
On 11/30/06, Enno Gottox Boland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The idea is to tag them to the selected tag, when the user views a tag again.
I know, but where do these windows go in the meantime? Are they on
screen, or invisible? Tagging them with the first tag the user views
after this sit
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:54:27AM +0100, Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I don't want to get rid of view() completely. I only wouldn't use it
> in my environment anymore, because it let me work in a workspace way.
>
> I don't think kicking view out of the main distribution is the way to
> ma
Hi!
Allowing windows to exist without any tags at all seems like a bad
idea to me. In what view should they appear? All or none?
The idea is to tag them to the selected tag, when the user views a tag again.
As I said before, dwm without view() is a bad idea. I don't see
anything wrong when it'
On 11/30/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here we go. Gottox proposed to get rid of view(), and letting
toggleview() do the work instead. This can be achieved through
allowing that no tag is viewed. This results in the side-effect
that during toggleview() clients with no tags at all
Hi!
I don't want to get rid of view() completely. I only wouldn't use it
in my environment anymore, because it let me work in a workspace way.
I don't think kicking view out of the main distribution is the way to
make "non-power-users" happy.
My idea is to make it easier to work only the taggin
Hi there,
Gottox proposed an interesting idea in IRC channel this morning.
I'd like to know, what people think about it, it's basically
removing a feature which is already there and making the
shortcuts simplier (maybe).
Here we go. Gottox proposed to get rid of view(), and letting
toggleview() d
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:13:00PM +, David Tweed wrote:
> Key points: (1) the tags array on a client is Bool, so we have 4 bytes used,
> so
> making an explicit int doesn't increase space reqs.
> (2) Any tagging operation eventually calls arrange(), which does at least one
> walk through full
Hi there,
I created new releases of dwm and dmenu.
http://suckless.org/download/dmenu-1.5.tar.gz
http://suckless.org/download/dwm-2.4.tar.gz
dwm now contains a client-specific togglefloat() function, which
is bound to MODKEY-Shift-space by default. It only works in
tiling mode. I also applied
38 matches
Mail list logo
