vamosaverlas:
>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:49:18 +0100
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: dwm@suckless.org
> > Subject: Re: [dwm] a lone client could be borderless
> >
> > On 3/21/08, markus schnalke wrote:
> >> But anyway, special corner ca
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:49:18 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: dwm@suckless.org
> Subject: Re: [dwm] a lone client could be borderless
>
> On 3/21/08, markus schnalke wrote:
>> But anyway, special corner case handling leads to bad code. It
>> conflicts wi
On 3/21/08, markus schnalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But anyway, special corner case handling leads to bad code. It
> conflicts with generality, which is one of the design principles.
if you look into the code then you will realise that the 'one tiled
client' case is handled specially anyway
(
Ralph E. Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When only one client is in a workspace (or tagset, or "view"),
> it could be borderless.
>
> In the default geom, or in bottomstack, the border is unnecessary.
> In my favorite monocle, any border would remind that something is
> below.
No.
The bo
2008/3/21, Ralph E. Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> When only one client is in a workspace (or tagset, or "view"),
> it could be borderless.
>
> In the default geom, or in bottomstack, the border is unnecessary.
> In my favorite monocle, any border would remind that something is
> below.
>
Th
When only one client is in a workspace (or tagset, or "view"),
it could be borderless.
In the default geom, or in bottomstack, the border is unnecessary.
In my favorite monocle, any border would remind that something is
below.
_
W
