Re: [dwm] dwm-5.1 / dmenu-3.8 / sic-1.0 / slock-0.9 / sselp-0.2
2008/7/30 Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There were also some minor changes to config.h, please use diff(1) when upgrading your 5.0.1 config.h in order to prevent bugs. How do I map togglemax? Is it still around? Indirectly, Mod1-m and then Mod1-space Note, I decided to handle tiled windows only in monocle. This is less painfull than maximising dialog windows. Kind regards, --Anselm
[dwm] DWMII layout for DWM 5.1, a better integration !!!
Hi all,
This is the DWMII layout for DWM 5.1. It is a layout in the dwm way this
time ! The only modification is within the Client struct and holds in 11
chars : int dwmii;\n. This modification prevents from having a more
complex algorithm and more lines of code. The last release of my layout
for dwm 5.0.1 contained bugs that I found later. Now, I think it's bug
free and I review the code for cleaning ! I also added the row layout
because I missed it. Feel free to try it and send me all your comments.
Kind regards,
QUINTIN Guillaume.
--- dwm.org.c 2008-07-30 12:48:52.0 +0200
+++ dwm.c 2008-07-30 12:56:10.0 +0200
@@ -91,6 +91,7 @@
Client *next;
Client *snext;
Window win;
+ int dwmii;
};
typedef struct {
@@ -201,6 +202,12 @@
static int xerrordummy(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *ee);
static int xerrorstart(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *ee);
static void zoom(const Arg *arg);
+static void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *);
+static void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *,Client *,int);
+static void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *);
+static void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void);
+static void dwmiilayoutcol(void);
+static void dwmiilayoutrow(void);
/* variables */
static char stext[256];
@@ -1742,3 +1749,127 @@
XCloseDisplay(dpy);
return 0;
}
+
+void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *arg)
+{
+ if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
+ Client *firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
+ if ( sel == firstclients ) { return ; }
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { sel-dwmii = 0; return; }
+ sel-dwmii = 1;
+ arrange();
+}
+
+void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *c,Client *after,int dwmii)
+{
+ if ( !c || !after ) { return; }
+ detach(c);
+ c-dwmii = dwmii;
+ c-next = after-next;
+ after-next = c;
+}
+
+void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *arg)
+{
+ if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
+ Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) ||
( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { return; }
+ Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0;
+ for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next) );
+ sel-dwmii = s-dwmii;
+ dwmiiinsertafter(s,sel,0);
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next),*s = 0;
+ if ( !t ) { sel-dwmii = 1; arrange(); return; }
+ int i = 2;
+ for( ; t ((i -= ( t-dwmii ? 1 : 0 )) 0) ; s = t,t =
nexttiled(t-next) );
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) {
t-dwmii = 1; } }
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,s,( i == 2 ? 1 : 0 ));
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next);
+ if ( !t || t-dwmii ) { return; }
+ t-dwmii = sel-dwmii;
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,t,0);
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ if ( sel == firstclients ) { return; }
+ Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0,*u = 0;
+ for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next),u = ( t-dwmii ?
s : u) );
+ if ( !u ) { return; }
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) {
t-dwmii = 1; } }
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,u,0);
+ }
+ arrange();
+}
+
+void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void)
+{
+ Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients),*t = firstclients;
+ for( ; t !t-dwmii ; t = nexttiled(t-next) );
+ firstclients-dwmii = 1;
+ if ( t (t != firstclients) ) { t-dwmii = 0; }
+}
+
+void dwmiilayoutcol(void)
+{
+ Client *firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
+ if ( !firstclients || (lt[sellt]-arrange != dwmiilayoutcol) ) {
return; }
+ dwmiinoinfiniteloop();
+ Client *t = nexttiled(firstclients-next);
+ int n = 1;
+ for( ; t ; n += ( t-dwmii ? 1 : 0 ),t = nexttiled(t-next) );
+ int x = wx,dw = ww / n;
+ for ( t = firstclients ; t ; )
+ {
+ if ( t-dwmii )
+ {
+ n = 1;
+ Client *s = nexttiled(t-next);
+ for( ; s !s-dwmii ; n++,s = nexttiled(s-next) );
+ int dh = wh / n,y = wy + dh;
+ resize(t,x,wy,dw - 2 * t-bw,dh - 2 *
t-bw,resizehints);
+ for( t = nexttiled(t-next) ; t !t-dwmii ; t =
nexttiled(t-next) )
+ {
+
Re: [dwm] DWMII layout for DWM 5.1, a better integration !!!
On 7/30/08, QUINTIN Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only modification is within the Client struct and holds in 11 chars : int dwmii;\n. This modification prevents from having a more yes the dwm config.h api is that powerful :) i'd put all the layout code in a separate file though, and only include that .c in config.h so the layout could be enabled/disabled easily, and the patch would be really one extra int in the client struct (+ possibly a layout entry in config.def.h).
Re: [dwm] DWMII layout for DWM 5.1, a better integration !!!
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:14 +0200, QUINTIN Guillaume wrote:
Hi all,
This is the DWMII layout for DWM 5.1. It is a layout in the dwm way this
time ! The only modification is within the Client struct and holds in 11
chars : int dwmii;\n. This modification prevents from having a more
complex algorithm and more lines of code. The last release of my layout
for dwm 5.0.1 contained bugs that I found later. Now, I think it's bug
free and I review the code for cleaning ! I also added the row layout
because I missed it. Feel free to try it and send me all your comments.
Kind regards,
QUINTIN Guillaume.
Hi Quintin!
Looks you're working hard to make dwmii fit more in the dwm concepts.
I am currenty a dwm addict, and see no points for using the wmii
approach, but it is an interesting area to play and maybe is somebody
interested on it.
I'll try it :)
Just some comments:
- If its just a layout. distribute it in a separate file and include it
from config.h.
- Write the instructions in the header of your .c file to add the int
dwmii in dwm.c manually.
- I dont see any point for having a function called
dwmiinoinfiniteloop
- conditional and loop brackets should be in the same line (for () {...)
and if () { instead of for()\n{.
- upload it, give an url and update the wiki :)
Fix those minor tips and I'll play with it this night at home!
--pancake
plain text document attachment (dwmii.patch)
--- dwm.org.c 2008-07-30 12:48:52.0 +0200
+++ dwm.c 2008-07-30 12:56:10.0 +0200
@@ -91,6 +91,7 @@
Client *next;
Client *snext;
Window win;
+ int dwmii;
};
typedef struct {
@@ -201,6 +202,12 @@
static int xerrordummy(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *ee);
static int xerrorstart(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *ee);
static void zoom(const Arg *arg);
+static void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *);
+static void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *,Client *,int);
+static void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *);
+static void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void);
+static void dwmiilayoutcol(void);
+static void dwmiilayoutrow(void);
/* variables */
static char stext[256];
@@ -1742,3 +1749,127 @@
XCloseDisplay(dpy);
return 0;
}
+
+void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *arg)
+{
+ if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
+ Client *firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
+ if ( sel == firstclients ) { return ; }
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { sel-dwmii = 0; return; }
+ sel-dwmii = 1;
+ arrange();
+}
+
+void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *c,Client *after,int dwmii)
+{
+ if ( !c || !after ) { return; }
+ detach(c);
+ c-dwmii = dwmii;
+ c-next = after-next;
+ after-next = c;
+}
+
+void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *arg)
+{
+ if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
+ Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) ||
( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { return; }
+ Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0;
+ for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next) );
+ sel-dwmii = s-dwmii;
+ dwmiiinsertafter(s,sel,0);
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next),*s = 0;
+ if ( !t ) { sel-dwmii = 1; arrange(); return; }
+ int i = 2;
+ for( ; t ((i -= ( t-dwmii ? 1 : 0 )) 0) ; s = t,t =
nexttiled(t-next) );
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) {
t-dwmii = 1; } }
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,s,( i == 2 ? 1 : 0 ));
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next);
+ if ( !t || t-dwmii ) { return; }
+ t-dwmii = sel-dwmii;
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,t,0);
+ }
+ if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) )
|| ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
+ {
+ if ( sel == firstclients ) { return; }
+ Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0,*u = 0;
+ for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next),u = ( t-dwmii ?
s : u) );
+ if ( !u ) { return; }
+ if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) {
t-dwmii = 1; } }
+ dwmiiinsertafter(sel,u,0);
+ }
+ arrange();
+}
+
+void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void)
+{
+ Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients),*t = firstclients;
+ for( ; t !t-dwmii ; t = nexttiled(t-next) );
+ firstclients-dwmii = 1;
+ if ( t (t != firstclients) ) { t-dwmii = 0; }
+}
+
+void dwmiilayoutcol(void)
+{
+ Client
Re: [dwm] save cpu cycles - bar status and wrapper scripts
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it out by wrapping the FD readin block with if(showbar) and it suppressed the output of the while loop to the dwm bar. However, to test it out I put an incrementing value in the while block of my dwm wrapper script and when I re-enable the bar, the value seems to have kept incrementing since I last disabled the bar. When I first re-enable, the value is set to the value it was when I disabled the bar, but on the next iteration jumps to a value that has been incremented many times since I disabled the bar. So it seems the output of the while loop is blocked, but the execution continues. I dug around on google and couldn't find much more info about blocking the while loop by not reading in from the pipe. The docs just say the output is blocked, but I think it means the output is suppressed while the command continues to run. So this is definitely less code and more elegant, but doesn't quite work. Cheers, Alex On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Monsieur Pinocchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have a wrapper script for dwm that checks a bunch of devices running on my laptop. I was thinking that a lot of times I don't even have the dwm bar up (i tend to hide it often for full screen work) and so why should the wrapper script constantly poll for status bar info if I can't see it. Long story short, I made a small change to write out a file to /tmp whenever the status bar is visible. Any thought if this is the right approach? Is there a less barbaric way to alert my dwm wrapper script that the bar is hidden? Diff is attached. I also added a config param to specify the filepath for the file that gets written. Cheers, Alex How about just not polling the input fd when bar is disabled? This will basically just block the write of the external command which is sending data into dwm and cause the external command to go to sleep thus automatically stopping it (and resuming it once the bar is shown again). -- Pinocchio
Re: [dwm] save cpu cycles - bar status and wrapper scripts
Maybe you could not run the script in the loop, and instead trigger it
when you activate the bar. Something like this:
static const char *barcmd[] = { /path/to/script /path/to/pipe, NULL };
...
static Key keys[] = {
{ MODKEY, XK_b, spawn, {.v = barcmd } },
{ MODKEY, XK_b, togglebar, {0} },
The problem is that it will trigger the script again when you _close_
the bar, but that's got to be better than just burning cycles the
whole time.
# Kurt H Maier
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it out by wrapping the FD readin
block with if(showbar) and it suppressed the output of the while loop
to the dwm bar.
However, to test it out I put an incrementing value in the while block
of my dwm wrapper script and when I re-enable the bar, the value seems
to have kept incrementing since I last disabled the bar. When I first
re-enable, the value is set to the value it was when I disabled the
bar, but on the next iteration jumps to a value that has been
incremented many times since I disabled the bar. So it seems the
output of the while loop is blocked, but the execution continues.
I dug around on google and couldn't find much more info about blocking
the while loop by not reading in from the pipe. The docs just say the
output is blocked, but I think it means the output is suppressed
while the command continues to run.
So this is definitely less code and more elegant, but doesn't quite work.
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Monsieur Pinocchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a wrapper script for dwm that checks a bunch of devices running
on my laptop. I was thinking that a lot of times I don't even have the
dwm bar up (i tend to hide it often for full screen work) and so why
should the wrapper script constantly poll for status bar info if I
can't see it. Long story short, I made a small change to write out a
file to /tmp whenever the status bar is visible. Any thought if this
is the right approach? Is there a less barbaric way to alert my dwm
wrapper script that the bar is hidden?
Diff is attached. I also added a config param to specify the filepath
for the file that gets written.
Cheers,
Alex
How about just not polling the input fd when bar is disabled? This will
basically just block the write of the external command which is sending data
into dwm and cause the external command to go to sleep thus automatically
stopping it (and resuming it once the bar is shown again).
--
Pinocchio
Re: [dwm] save cpu cycles - bar status and wrapper scripts
On 7/30/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
static const char *barcmd[] = { /path/to/script /path/to/pipe, NULL };
SHCMD(/path/to/script /path/to/pipe) macro should be used there
(so the '' is interpreted by the shell)
[dwm] DWMII layout with a more better integration
Hi all and pancake !
This is the dwmii.c file containing the dwmii layout with the
instructions to make it work !
@pancake :
I dont see any point for having a function called
dwmiinoinfiniteloop
Well this function is necessary, I didn't know how to call it, though
its name is relevant... If you don't like its name feel free to change
it but I won't. The important thing is that it does its job.
conditional and loop brackets should be in the same line (for () {...)
and if () { instead of for()\n{.
Well, everyone has its habits, since it does not alterate the quality of
the code.
Kind regards,
QUINTIN Guillaume
/*
* I used WMII and found it too heavy. So I switched to dwm but I
* quickly missed the possibilities of having several columns,
* several windows in each column and moving the windows from a
* column into another or change the windows' order within a column.
* As there were no patch (or layout) providing that, I wrote one.
* I also added a layout that does the same thing but arrange the
* windows by rows.
*
* The col dwmii layout :
*
* +--+--+--+
* | | | |
* +--+ | |
* | +--+ |
* +--+ | |
* | | | |
* +--+--+--+
*
* The row dwmii layout :
*
* +--+---+--+
* + | | +
* +--+-+-+--+
* |||
* +++
* | |
* +-+
*
* You can move a window to the next/previous columnn, after the next
* window or before the previous window within a column by simple
* combination of keys (the same as in WMII).
*
* To get the dwmii layouts working you have to :
* - have DWM version 5.1
* - add these lines in the config.h file :
* - just before the layouts array :
*
* #include dwmii.c
*
* - in the layouts array :
*
* { COL, dwmiilayoutcol },
* { ROW, dwmiilayoutrow },
*
* - in the keys array :
*
* { MODKEY, XK_c, setlayout, {.v = layouts[1]} },
* { MODKEY, XK_r, setlayout, {.v = layouts[2]} },
* { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_Up, dwmiikeypressed, {.i = XK_Up} },
* { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_Left, dwmiikeypressed, {.i = XK_Left} },
* { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_Down, dwmiikeypressed, {.i = XK_Down} },
* { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_Right, dwmiikeypressed, {.i = XK_Right} },
* { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_n, dwmiitoggle, {0} },
*
* - add this line in the Client struct definition in the dwm.c file :
*
* int dwmii;
*
* - compile and it should work !
*
* The dwmiitoggle sets the dwmii variable of a window, when
* the dwmii is non zero then the window marks the start of a
* new column/row depending on the layout used.
*
* Enjoy it and feel free to send me all your comments !
*
* QUINTIN Guillaume
*
*/
static void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *);
static void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *,Client *,int);
static void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *);
static void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void);
static void dwmiilayoutcol(void);
static void dwmiilayoutrow(void);
void dwmiitoggle(const Arg *arg)
{
if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
Client *firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
if ( sel == firstclients ) { return ; }
if ( sel-dwmii ) { sel-dwmii = 0; return; }
sel-dwmii = 1;
arrange();
}
void dwmiiinsertafter(Client *c,Client *after,int dwmii)
{
if ( !c || !after ) { return; }
detach(c);
c-dwmii = dwmii;
c-next = after-next;
after-next = c;
}
void dwmiikeypressed(const Arg *arg)
{
if ( !lt[sellt]-arrange || (sel sel-isfloating) ) { return; }
Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) || ( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
{
if ( sel-dwmii ) { return; }
Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0;
for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next) );
sel-dwmii = s-dwmii;
dwmiiinsertafter(s,sel,0);
}
if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) || ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
{
Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next),*s = 0;
if ( !t ) { sel-dwmii = 1; arrange(); return; }
int i = 2;
for( ; t ((i -= ( t-dwmii ? 1 : 0 )) 0) ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next) );
if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) { t-dwmii = 1; } }
dwmiiinsertafter(sel,s,( i == 2 ? 1 : 0 ));
}
if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Down) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) || ( (arg-i == XK_Right) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
{
Client *t = nexttiled(sel-next);
if ( !t || t-dwmii ) { return; }
t-dwmii = sel-dwmii;
dwmiiinsertafter(sel,t,0);
}
if ( ( (arg-i == XK_Left) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol) ) || ( (arg-i == XK_Up) (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutrow) ) )
{
if ( sel == firstclients ) { return; }
Client *t = firstclients,*s = 0,*u = 0;
for( ; t != sel ; s = t,t = nexttiled(t-next),u = ( t-dwmii ? s : u) );
if ( !u ) { return; }
if ( sel-dwmii ) { t = nexttiled(sel-next); if ( t ) { t-dwmii = 1; } }
Re: [dwm] DWMII layout with a more better integration
@pancake :
I dont see any point for having a function called
dwmiinoinfiniteloop
Well this function is necessary, I didn't know how to call it,
though its name is relevant... If you don't like its name feel free
to change it but I won't. The important thing is that it does its job.
I think what pancake meant is that code that needs a function
called dwmiinoinfiniteloop can usually be rewritten to not require
it, improving maintainability. From what I can tell, it unsets the
second dwmii bit it finds, merging the second column of windows into
the first column. Why?
--snip--
void dwmiinoinfiniteloop(void)
{
Client* firstclients = nexttiled(clients),*t = firstclients;
for( ; t !t-dwmii ; t = nexttiled(t-next) );
firstclients-dwmii = 1;
if ( t (t != firstclients) ) { t-dwmii = 0; }
}
The code below contains lots of if's that seem to be always true
(or should be). Why check them? You don't call dwmiilayoutcol unless
if (lt[sellt]-arrange == dwmiilayoutcol). Also, the line
if (t-dwmii)
should always be true. Otherwise, you'll get an infinite loop. I
think it'd be better to remove this check (and not explicitly set
firstclients-dwmii=1). This might work better for the case of
windows having multiple tags...
void dwmiilayoutcol(void)
{
Client *firstclients = nexttiled(clients);
if ( !firstclients || (lt[sellt]-arrange != dwmiilayoutcol) )
{ return; }
dwmiinoinfiniteloop();
Client *t = nexttiled(firstclients-next);
int n = 1;
for( ; t ; n += ( t-dwmii ? 1 : 0 ),t = nexttiled(t-next) );
int x = wx,dw = ww / n;
for ( t = firstclients ; t ; )
{
if ( t-dwmii )
{
n = 1;
Client *s = nexttiled(t-next);
for( ; s !s-dwmii ; n++,s = nexttiled(s-next) );
int dh = wh / n,y = wy + dh;
resize(t,x,wy,dw - 2 * t-bw,dh - 2 *
t-bw,resizehints);
for( t = nexttiled(t-next) ; t !t-dwmii ; t = nexttiled(t-
next) )
{
resize(t,x,y,dw - 2 * t-bw,dh - 2 *
t-bw,resizehints);
y += dh;
}
x += dw;
}
}
}
[dwm] unsigned int or size_t
Hi All, I noticed the code in dwm uses unsigned int for positive counters of memory arrays instead of size_t. Is there a particular reason you don't use size_t in order to convey that you are using that quantity as a counter of memory space? -- Cheers, Filippo
Re: [dwm] DockBox - A Tiling Window Manager for Windows
Thanks, that's interesting.
Re: [dwm] save cpu cycles - bar status and wrapper scripts
Works like a champ! Here is my script setup (please let me know if I
can improve anything):
.xinitrc:
--
...
rmdir /tmp/dwm-bar-script-lock
dwm-statusbar
dwm-launch
dwm-statusbar:
--
#!/bin/bash
#Incrementing numbers are just for testing.
LOCK=/tmp/dwm-bar-script-lock
if mkdir $LOCK; then
i=0
while [ -e $SHOWBAR ]; do
((i++))
echo $i [`date '+%a %b %d %I:%M%P'`]
sleep 1
done /tmp/dwmpipe
else
rmdir $LOCK
killall dwm-statusbar
fi
dwm-launch:
-
#!/bin/bash
DWM_PIPE=/tmp/dwmpipe
if [ ! -e $DWM_PIPE ]; then
mkfifo $DWM_PIPE
fi
while true; do
cat $DWM_PIPE
done | dwm
config.h:
...
static const char *barcmd[] = { dwm-statusbar, NULL };
...
static Key keys[] = {
{ MODKEY, XK_b, spawn,
{.v = barcmd } },
{ MODKEY, XK_b, togglebar, {0} },
...
Now I don't have to patch DWM at all... well... at least not for this
feature, haha :)
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you could not run the script in the loop, and instead trigger it
when you activate the bar. Something like this:
static const char *barcmd[] = { /path/to/script /path/to/pipe, NULL };
...
static Key keys[] = {
{ MODKEY, XK_b, spawn, {.v = barcmd } },
{ MODKEY, XK_b, togglebar, {0} },
The problem is that it will trigger the script again when you _close_
the bar, but that's got to be better than just burning cycles the
whole time.
# Kurt H Maier
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it out by wrapping the FD readin
block with if(showbar) and it suppressed the output of the while loop
to the dwm bar.
However, to test it out I put an incrementing value in the while block
of my dwm wrapper script and when I re-enable the bar, the value seems
to have kept incrementing since I last disabled the bar. When I first
re-enable, the value is set to the value it was when I disabled the
bar, but on the next iteration jumps to a value that has been
incremented many times since I disabled the bar. So it seems the
output of the while loop is blocked, but the execution continues.
I dug around on google and couldn't find much more info about blocking
the while loop by not reading in from the pipe. The docs just say the
output is blocked, but I think it means the output is suppressed
while the command continues to run.
So this is definitely less code and more elegant, but doesn't quite work.
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Monsieur Pinocchio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Alex Matviychuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a wrapper script for dwm that checks a bunch of devices running
on my laptop. I was thinking that a lot of times I don't even have the
dwm bar up (i tend to hide it often for full screen work) and so why
should the wrapper script constantly poll for status bar info if I
can't see it. Long story short, I made a small change to write out a
file to /tmp whenever the status bar is visible. Any thought if this
is the right approach? Is there a less barbaric way to alert my dwm
wrapper script that the bar is hidden?
Diff is attached. I also added a config param to specify the filepath
for the file that gets written.
Cheers,
Alex
How about just not polling the input fd when bar is disabled? This will
basically just block the write of the external command which is sending data
into dwm and cause the external command to go to sleep thus automatically
stopping it (and resuming it once the bar is shown again).
--
Pinocchio
