Re: [dwm] ii best practices
i think scrollz already have this. Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: I want to start using ii for irc. What discouraged me from doing so was a proper input method. Currently I know 2 methods to effectively input text to ii: vim and dinput. I don't like both for some reason. Do you have any best practices for using ii? echo(1), I'm not using ii but sic, but I usually create a fifo for sending input to sic using echo or sometimes cat(1), if I plan to have longer conversations than the usual hello. But this would require me to write something like each time I want to send something to the channel: $ echo 'Hello' fifo # or $ cat fifo Hello^D Of course you could do: $ while true; do cat fifo; done But what about this: +---+ | | | urxvt | |tail -f fifo | | | | | |...| | input | +---+ The basic idea is to embedd the urxvt window in another window which also embedds an input window. The input window could be urxvt running a small programme or small X11 programme reading input and writing to the fifo. This is much nicer for tiling and feels more like an irc client. You could do this with screen of course. Any other ideas? Regards Matthias-Christian
Re: [dwm] ii best practices
pancake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think scrollz already have this. But scrollz is an ununix irc client. Regards Matthias-Christian
Re: [dwm] ii best practices
pancake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think scrollz already have this. But scrollz is an ununix irc client. but scrollz is composed by two programs - a terminal control with the described functionality - an irc client that uses the terminal control tool imho the terminal control is what you described in the other mail
Re: [dwm] ntile layout for dwm hg tip
Nibble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, And I can say that for xinerama we will probably need to adapt it to support also vertical tiling. Using horitzontal it's mostly a waste of space on big screens. Yes, I think you are right. Furthermore, horizontal tiling (Anselm's notation) could be useful for some other geoms (eg bottom). I would like to see something like vntile and hntile or just a toggle for it. What do you think about this? It is a good idea. In the patch there are now four layouts called: -|=, ntilevv -||, ntilevh ||=, ntilehv |||, ntilehh to fit all the cases: 2 small screens, 2 big screens, 1 small and/or 1 big screen. People can safely remove from the patch those ones they don't need. You could simplify the code by introducing to two global variables that indicate whether the master or tiled area is horizontal. So switching to |= would simply set tileh = True and leave masterh unchanged and switchting to -|= would set tileh = True and masterh = True. So you could simple toggle the behaviour (e.g. MOD-v - masterh = False, MOD-Shift-v - tileh = False) and don't need four layouts. Anyway I think some kind of nmaster patch should go into dwm hg tip. Regards Matthias-Christian
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? You're one day late! If you're serious though, what exactly do you mean? wmii-3/acme like (as in: dynamic amount of columns, and three modes per column)? Gr. Sander.
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
it would be hilariously great. i've tried it, but never saw the point of this not-so-revolutionary concept.
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On 4/2/08, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple \o/ tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? that's radical indeed but sounds cleaner than the current solution so +1
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:39PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? If you're serious though, what exactly do you mean? wmii-3/acme like (as in: dynamic amount of columns, and three modes per column)? Exactly. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? I haven't tested wmii for a long time, but if you mean want to turn dwm into something more acme-like, I vote against it. I'm using dwm on a fairly small screen (17'', 1024x768), but it works for me with 2 windows in the master area: ++--+ |$ | | || | || | ++ | |$ | | || | || | ++--+ But I would prefer something like this: ++--+ || | || | ++--+ || | || | +--+-+--+ | | | | | | | | +---+ Additionally I would like to be able to stack multiple tags. So if I select 1, 2 and 3 each one is a separated layer which you can raise or lower. This is much like maximised windows that you cycle through. So a tag in this layout is much more like a group. It would be also nice in this layout to lower individual windows so that by lowering them they become member of tag behind the current tag in the stack. If you want to allow raising that way you would of course need transparency. Maybe the status bar should also the tags, so that you can raise a certain tag by clicking on its name. So the idea of tag layout should be worth considering (image a big screen with floating resizeable tags). Regards Matthias-Christian
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? Could we please stop rewriting dwm for the n-th time and focus on st instead! Thanks, Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner http://www.brain-dump.org/ GPG key: CF7D56C0
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
I am still eager to sea a really acme-like *interface* additionally to only it's layout. But i assume this is not your ambition.
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:39PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote: If you're serious though, what exactly do you mean? wmii-3/acme like (as in: dynamic amount of columns, and three modes per column)? Exactly. Hm, would that mean you'd have to introduce titlebars for stack mode?
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:53:10PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:39PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote: If you're serious though, what exactly do you mean? wmii-3/acme like (as in: dynamic amount of columns, and three modes per column)? Exactly. Hm, would that mean you'd have to introduce titlebars for stack mode? No, I would only consider columns with usual tiling and the possibility to grow/shrink the current window resp. column. No modes in a column. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:37:49PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? Could we please stop rewriting dwm for the n-th time and focus on st instead! It won't be a rewrite, just a change in the basic concepts. As long as dwm does not feel perfect to me, I continue changing it. Of course st is one of my really high priorities. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
[dwm] setmfact improvements
Hi,
Attached are two small patches to setmfact. The first one removes some
redundancy, saving 5 LOC; the second one reintroduces the MFACT define
that was present (as MWFACT) before, so that you can do setmfact(NULL)
to restore your initial master factor.
Taken together, they add 1 LOC.
Regards,
Peter
diff -r 3ac7eb240b52 dwm.c
--- a/dwm.c Tue Apr 01 15:45:37 2008 +0100
+++ b/dwm.c Wed Apr 02 15:25:44 2008 +0200
@@ -1467,21 +1467,16 @@
void
setmfact(const char *arg) {
- double delta;
+ double d;
if(!arg || lt-isfloating)
return;
- delta = strtod(arg, NULL);
- if(arg[0] == '-' || arg[0] == '+') {
- if(mfact + delta 0.1 || mfact + delta 0.9)
- return;
- mfact += delta;
- }
- else {
- if(delta 0.1 || delta 0.9)
- return;
- mfact = delta;
- }
+ d = strtod(arg, NULL);
+ if(arg[0] == '-' || arg[0] == '+')
+ d += mfact;
+ if(d 0.1 || d 0.9)
+ return;
+ mfact = d;
setgeom(geom-symbol);
}
diff -r 3c8ba4a4092d config.def.h
--- a/config.def.h Wed Apr 02 15:55:43 2008 +0200
+++ b/config.def.h Wed Apr 02 15:59:51 2008 +0200
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
/* geometries, s{x,y,w,h} and bh are already initualized here */
/* func name bx by bw wx wy ww wh mx my mw mh tx ty
tw th mox moy mow moh */
-double mfact = 0.55;
+#define MFACT 0.55/* master width factor [0.1 .. 0.9] */
DEFGEOM(single, 0, 0, sw, 0, bh, sw, sh-bh, wx, wy, mfact*sw, wh, mx+mw,
wy, ww-mw, wh, wx, wy, ww, wh)
DEFGEOM(dual,0, 0,1280, 0, bh, ww, wh-bh, wx, wy, 1280,800-bh, 1280, 0,
ww-mw, sh, mx, my, mw, mh)
diff -r 3c8ba4a4092d dwm.c
--- a/dwm.c Wed Apr 02 15:55:43 2008 +0200
+++ b/dwm.c Wed Apr 02 15:59:51 2008 +0200
@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@
int screen, sx, sy, sw, sh;
int (*xerrorxlib)(Display *, XErrorEvent *);
int bx, by, bw, bh, blw, bgw, mx, my, mw, mh, mox, moy, mow, moh, tx, ty, tw,
th, wx, wy, ww, wh;
+double mfact;
unsigned int numlockmask = 0;
void (*handler[LASTEvent]) (XEvent *) = {
[ButtonPress] = buttonpress,
@@ -1469,14 +1470,18 @@
setmfact(const char *arg) {
double d;
- if(!arg || lt-isfloating)
+ if(lt-isfloating)
return;
- d = strtod(arg, NULL);
- if(arg[0] == '-' || arg[0] == '+')
- d += mfact;
- if(d 0.1 || d 0.9)
- return;
- mfact = d;
+ if(!arg)
+ mfact = MFACT;
+ else {
+ d = strtod(arg, NULL);
+ if(arg[0] == '-' || arg[0] == '+')
+ d += mfact;
+ if(d 0.1 || d 0.9)
+ return;
+ mfact = d;
+ }
setgeom(geom-symbol);
}
@@ -1496,6 +1501,7 @@
sw = DisplayWidth(dpy, screen);
sh = DisplayHeight(dpy, screen);
bh = dc.font.height + 2;
+ mfact = MFACT;
geom = geoms[0];
geom-apply();
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is what I have exactly in mind from a user perspective:
Initially there is 1 column, a new client is inserted below the
currently selected window in the column, similiar to the stack
in tiled layout.
Each window can be moved left- or rightwards (Mod1-Shift-{h,l})
which may result in a new column if there is none. A
new column gets half the size of the current column.
Each window can also be moved up- or downwards in the column
itself (Mod1-Shift-{j,k}).
Columns can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{h,l}.
Windows can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{j,k}.
The navigation is rather straight-forward:
Focussing the previous/next window in the current column is done
with Mod1-{j,k}, focussing the previous/next column is done with
Mod1-{h,l}.
So the whole layout concept consists of basically 4 keys with 3
kinds of modifiers.
But this wouldn't exclude the tag concept of dwm, it just means giving
up this tiled and master area concept, or did I get it wrong?
Is your concept limited to horizontal columns or are vertical columns or
both simultaneously possible?
Regards
Matthias-Christian
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? I would like it :) But i need modes per column in this case. Stack (That would need titlebars...), maximized and tiled. But are the modes are even possible in dwm with only 2000 lines of code? Regards, Fabio Scotoni
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:37:47PM +0200, Matthias Kirschner wrote: * Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-02 16:11:54 +0200]: Initially there is 1 column, a new client is inserted below the currently selected window in the column, similiar to the stack in tiled layout. If I open a new window, it would be more handy for me if the default is to open it in a new column. Because for most programs I use it is more important to see more of the vertical than the horizontal part (e.g. ls, editing text). If the default is to open a new row that would be a waste of place (even on my 12 screen). This was the reason for me not to use wmii. So I would like to know what the reason is for the default open in the same column in row is. (Perhaps I can improve my way of working :) .) Perhaps it is possible to have the option between those two ways? Well what you describe was actually a reason why I disliked the column layout as well. One could consider a global ncol value which takes preference being reached, before columns are filled. But would this really be worth the effort? And two more questions: - would there be no maximise / monocle? There should be some kind of maximise. - would there be no floating? I'm not sure about a floating layout in this regard, but a floating layer is a must, esp. for transients. But all the thoughts might never be realized, I just want to know what the community thinks. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:27:34PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is what I have exactly in mind from a user perspective:
Initially there is 1 column, a new client is inserted below the
currently selected window in the column, similiar to the stack
in tiled layout.
Each window can be moved left- or rightwards (Mod1-Shift-{h,l})
which may result in a new column if there is none. A
new column gets half the size of the current column.
Each window can also be moved up- or downwards in the column
itself (Mod1-Shift-{j,k}).
Columns can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{h,l}.
Windows can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{j,k}.
The navigation is rather straight-forward:
Focussing the previous/next window in the current column is done
with Mod1-{j,k}, focussing the previous/next column is done with
Mod1-{h,l}.
So the whole layout concept consists of basically 4 keys with 3
kinds of modifiers.
But this wouldn't exclude the tag concept of dwm, it just means giving
up this tiled and master area concept, or did I get it wrong?
The tagging concept would stay, except the ability of viewing
more than 1 tag at a time (though a specific window could be
sticky because it contains all tags).
Is there a particular reason for this? Probably most people consider
viewing multiple tags as a necessary feature.
Is your concept limited to horizontal columns or are vertical columns or
both simultaneously possible?
Theoretically one could do rows from columns, but in practice I
believe that columns just work out very well.
For me columns won't work, because I can't display two 80x24 terminals
at the same time on my monitor. Rows are essential for me, because
otherwise I have to switch tags very often or use a floating layout.
What won't be possible is having rows and columns mixed
together -- at least I won't support this officially.
But this would actually make the layout I previously described possible.
Regards
Matthias-Christian
[dwm] A rather radical thought
Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time Please, don't do it, personaly, I use this feature very much. Don't you think that eliminating it will approach dwm to workspace model?
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? Maybe. Are you going to publish dwm 4.9 shortly? It has some changes I want, but I'd rather not grab the tip and wait for the release. Thanks! -Ross
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
Marc Andre Tanner dixit (2008-04-02, 15:37): Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? Could we please stop rewriting dwm for the n-th time and focus on st instead! Agreed. I reckon hg tip number 1122 was pretty much perfect. Everything afterwards is pretty much a waste of time (with all due respect :)). -- [a] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
I never display multiple tags at a time. The idea, though very elegant, doesn't work for me. I usually work by adding terminals, etc to a single tag until there are too many to be useful then throw one or more over to another tag and keep going. For me a column layout would be appealing, although if you aren't going to support column modes, I don't see how it would be much different than the htile layout. On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:59:24 +0200 From: Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [dwm] A rather radical thought To: dwm@suckless.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:43:06PM +0400, Michael wrote: Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags at a time Please, don't do it, personaly, I use this feature very much. Don't you think that eliminating it will approach dwm to workspace model? Well if it is not possible to view several tags at a time, two tagall/dropall functions could be considered to apply/drop a certain tag to all visible clients for convenience reasons. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] dwm Digest, Vol 22, Issue 5
I really like this, though I seem to be in a minority.
Also looks like you need way more state to implement this.
I wonder, Anselm, if you looked at my optimal tile patch. It adds
more rows and columns as needed, is fairly simple, and doesn't require
more state.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:11:54 +0200
From: Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
To: dwm@suckless.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Here is what I have exactly in mind from a user perspective:
Initially there is 1 column, a new client is inserted below the
currently selected window in the column, similiar to the stack
in tiled layout.
Each window can be moved left- or rightwards (Mod1-Shift-{h,l})
which may result in a new column if there is none. A
new column gets half the size of the current column.
Each window can also be moved up- or downwards in the column
itself (Mod1-Shift-{j,k}).
Columns can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{h,l}.
Windows can be grown/shrinked using Mod1-Control-{j,k}.
The navigation is rather straight-forward:
Focussing the previous/next window in the current column is done
with Mod1-{j,k}, focussing the previous/next column is done with
Mod1-{h,l}.
So the whole layout concept consists of basically 4 keys with 3
kinds of modifiers.
Kind regards,
--
Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:04:26PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: Well if it is not possible to view several tags at a time, two tagall/dropall functions could be considered to apply/drop a certain tag to all visible clients for convenience reasons. But then after switching to another tag, I would still see those window windows, which i marked in previous view, current approach is good because of lacking such behaviour. Let me be more specific, I use this feature when I want mix firefox and OOO, I just apply for the current view two tags: doc and www, which is very logical. I don't want to apply doc tag for firefox window every time I need to look for something in web page, it will require too many actions, and i think it's just not correct: I want only *view* specific tags, I don't want apply any of them. Dwm is excellent manager, it has simple and powerful system of views and tags, and you want to elliminate one of the degree of freedom in it, please, don't do it.
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags I never used it, but it is more because most of the time I don't think about it, and simply apply the same tag to two windows and switch to this one, instead of selecting two tags. It was the same with alt+tab, but since it made it's way into my brain, and now it's the combination I use most. at a time and celebrating the revival of the column layout of wmii again in dwm 5.0? What about getting rid of all the tiled layout flavors in favor for the column layout? I like the two column layout of dwm and if I would like to have more, I would use wmii. I would more prefer to be able to apply different column withs to different tags. bye richi -- quoting guide: http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html pgpwzTMg4QGJs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 08:27:11PM +0400, Michael wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:04:26PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: Well if it is not possible to view several tags at a time, two tagall/dropall functions could be considered to apply/drop a certain tag to all visible clients for convenience reasons. But then after switching to another tag, I would still see those window windows, which i marked in previous view, current approach is good because of lacking such behaviour. Let me be more specific, I use this feature when I want mix firefox and OOO, I just apply for the current view two tags: doc and www, which is very logical. I don't want to apply doc tag for firefox window every time I need to look for something in web page, it will require too many actions, and i think it's just not correct: I want only *view* specific tags, I don't want apply any of them. Dwm is excellent manager, it has simple and powerful system of views and tags, and you want to elliminate one of the degree of freedom in it, please, don't do it. Well the reason I started this discussion was actually to just discuss this idea. We did several times in the past, and always we came to the conclusion that dwm is right already. Though, I see a lot of potential to improve the basic layout algorithm to something which is similiar capable to the wmii column layout. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
[dwm] simplify grabbuttons()
Hello,
below is a patch that shortens grabbuttons() a bit.
Cheers,
Johannes
PS: I really appreciate the attitude to reconsider everything from
time to time - even though I'm quite satisfied with current dwm.
diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
--- a/dwm.c
+++ b/dwm.c
@@ -805,36 +805,18 @@
void
grabbuttons(Client *c, Bool focused) {
+ unsigned int Buttons[] = {Button1, Button2, Button3};
+ unsigned int Modifiers[] = {MODKEY, MODKEY|LockMask,
+ MODKEY|numlockmask, MODKEY|numlockmask|LockMask};
+ int i, j;
+
XUngrabButton(dpy, AnyButton, AnyModifier, c-win);
- if(focused) {
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button1, MODKEY, c-win, False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button1, MODKEY|LockMask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button1, MODKEY|numlockmask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button1, MODKEY|numlockmask|LockMask, c-win,
False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
-
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button2, MODKEY, c-win, False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button2, MODKEY|LockMask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button2, MODKEY|numlockmask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button2, MODKEY|numlockmask|LockMask, c-win,
False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
-
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button3, MODKEY, c-win, False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button3, MODKEY|LockMask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button3, MODKEY|numlockmask, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- XGrabButton(dpy, Button3, MODKEY|numlockmask|LockMask, c-win,
False, BUTTONMASK,
- GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
- }
+ if(focused)
+ for (i = 0; i LENGTH(Buttons); i++)
+ for (j = 0; j LENGTH(Modifiers); j++)
+ XGrabButton(dpy, Buttons[i], Modifiers[j],
c-win, False,
+ BUTTONMASK, GrabModeAsync,
GrabModeSync, None, None);
else
XGrabButton(dpy, AnyButton, AnyModifier, c-win, False,
BUTTONMASK,
GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags In my estimation, without multiple tagging, there's no reason to use dwm -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
I agree. For me, the major distinction between DWM and the other window managers has been the use of tags instead of workspaces. I also don't like the idea of moving windows around columns. I think the zoom function is a sufficient mode of manipulating windows (between master/slave areas). I feel like the navigation within the columns would make the window manager less dynamic, as the user would have to (or feel obligated to) keep rearranging windows. On 4/2/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags In my estimation, without multiple tagging, there's no reason to use dwm -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dwm] simplify grabbuttons()
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:01:11PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: below is a patch that shortens grabbuttons() a bit. Of course this will make it to hg tip ;) Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
[dwm] there won't be a radical change
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:21PM -0400, John Grahor wrote: I really like this, though I seem to be in a minority. Also looks like you need way more state to implement this. I wonder, Anselm, if you looked at my optimal tile patch. It adds more rows and columns as needed, is fairly simple, and doesn't require more state. Well, I think it might go into this direction. I agree on most people claiming to not do too major changes. So see this as a statement to not expect a radical change ;) Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is what I have exactly in mind from a user perspective: ... snip several command explanations ... So the whole layout concept consists of basically 4 keys with 3 kinds of modifiers. 4x3 = 12 (TWELVE!) combos to remember/learn to manage windows? Currently I have (i think) only three: mwresize (left and right) and zoom. I would reiterate that the whole appeal of dwm is to manage my windows in a predictable way and get out of my way. All this capability to move windows around is exactly why i abandoned wmii (not to mention non-tiling WMs) in the first place, wasting to much time organizing windows just so. And I would like to echo that the ability to mix and match what tags I am viewing is the real dynamic backbone in dwm. I separate applications by tag and then view the tags I need for the job at hand, whether thats a text editor and www for reference, web and chat on the side, I pull in email periodically to check it and then dismiss it. Without the ability to quickly bring in windows not in the current view, whats the point of tags? Regards, -Andrew
Re: [dwm] A rather radical thought
On Wednesday 02 of April 2008 19:47:30 voltaic wrote: I agree. For me, the major distinction between DWM and the other window managers has been the use of tags instead of workspaces. I also don't like the idea of moving windows around columns. I think the zoom function is a sufficient mode of manipulating windows (between master/slave areas). I feel like the navigation within the columns would make the window manager less dynamic, as the user would have to (or feel obligated to) keep rearranging windows. On 4/2/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: What about getting rid of supporting the selection of multiple tags In my estimation, without multiple tagging, there's no reason to use dwm -- # Kurt H Maier Agree. I use viewing of multiple tags regularly in my workflow and would miss it (too?) much. -- Damjan Vrenčur ~ http://lmmri.fri.uni-lj.si/damjan/ ~ GPG key: C6A3146F
[dwm] again, don't expect the change I discussed about happen
See subject, this is related to the column layout discussion ;) -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] experimental patch: escher
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:57AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: More refactoring: - remove boilerplate code by creating a macro to generate layout functions - replace tileh/tilev with the version that do nmaster It's interesting now that removing nmaster support doesn't really buy that much: just one function (setnmaster) and one if-statement. LOC counts: dwm stock: $ wc -l dwm.c config.def.h 1952 dwm.c 102 config.def.h 2054 total patched: $ wc -l dwm.c config.def.h dwindle.c 1884 dwm.c 109 config.def.h 78 dwindle.c 2071 total +17 LOC for nmaster and two spiral modes isn't shabby. me Well that's a good result, but I will postpone a decision here. I plan to refactor the layout stuff a little bit after dwm 4.9, there is obviously potential to simplify the algorithms. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] setmfact improvements
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Peter Hartlich wrote: Attached are two small patches to setmfact. The first one removes some redundancy, saving 5 LOC; the second one reintroduces the MFACT define that was present (as MWFACT) before, so that you can do setmfact(NULL) to restore your initial master factor. Taken together, they add 1 LOC. Thanks, I applied the second one which re-introduces MFACT. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
[dwm] final testing call for dwm-4.9
Hi there, I kindly ask you to give hg tip a try. If there are no bugs, it will be dwm-4.9 tomorrow evening. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] ntile layout for dwm hg tip
You could simplify the code by introducing to two global variables that indicate whether the master or tiled area is horizontal. So switching to |= would simply set tileh = True and leave masterh unchanged and switchting to -|= would set tileh = True and masterh = True. So you could simple toggle the behaviour (e.g. MOD-v - masterh = False, MOD-Shift-v - tileh = False) and don't need four layouts. I was thinking over that solution, but I feel that setting four different layouts goes more in accordance with the dwm philosophy (eg. tileh and tilev). Furthermore, people usually need only one of the nmaster layouts, so they can safely remove the other ones. Kind regards, Nibble
