Re: [dwm] Issues with border
fullack.
2009/2/19, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I dislike the recent addition of the 0 border if only 1 tiled client
is in the view, reasons:
- gained screen real eastate is very minimal
- configure events are increased by n at any view() and toggleview(),
if n is the number of clients in the view
- corner cases for togglefloating()
- I dislike adjustborder() altogether
So my proposal is: reverting to old behavior (nonoborder), and for
those who like it, use a config.h function like:
void toggleborder(const Arg *arg) {
borderpx = 1 - borderpx;
arrange();
}
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Kind regards,
--Anselm
--
http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
Anselm R Garbe dixit (2009-02-19, 13:34):
Hi,
I dislike the recent addition of the 0 border if only 1 tiled client
is in the view, reasons:
- gained screen real eastate is very minimal
- configure events are increased by n at any view() and toggleview(),
if n is the number of clients in the view
- corner cases for togglefloating()
- I dislike adjustborder() altogether
So my proposal is: reverting to old behavior (nonoborder), and for
those who like it, use a config.h function like:
void toggleborder(const Arg *arg) {
borderpx = 1 - borderpx;
arrange();
}
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Agreed. Seems more consistent and elegant. Still, perhaps we can rethink
the concept of some visual indication if there's more than one client in
monocle (some kind sould posted a patch showing [client/total] next
to the tag bar in monocle mode, perhaps this (or something similar)
could be integrated right into the monocle indicator).
Best,
--
[a]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
On (19/02/09 13:34), Anselm R Garbe wrote:
To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
From: Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com
Subject: [dwm] Issues with border
Reply-To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
List-Id: dwm mail list dwm.suckless.org
Hi,
I dislike the recent addition of the 0 border if only 1 tiled client
is in the view, reasons:
- gained screen real eastate is very minimal
- configure events are increased by n at any view() and toggleview(),
if n is the number of clients in the view
- corner cases for togglefloating()
- I dislike adjustborder() altogether
So my proposal is: reverting to old behavior (nonoborder), and for
those who like it, use a config.h function like:
void toggleborder(const Arg *arg) {
borderpx = 1 - borderpx;
arrange();
}
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Kind regards,
--Anselm
I'm pro too, as I really dislike the noborder.
-Ph
--
Premysl Anydot Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
I agree too. The shimmy going from a one-client tag to a multi-client tag
and back again is very distracting.
Jeremy
On Thu 19 Feb 2009 - 02:57PM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
On (19/02/09 13:34), Anselm R Garbe wrote:
To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
From: Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com
Subject: [dwm] Issues with border
Reply-To: dwm mail list dwm@suckless.org
List-Id: dwm mail list dwm.suckless.org
Hi,
I dislike the recent addition of the 0 border if only 1 tiled client
is in the view, reasons:
- gained screen real eastate is very minimal
- configure events are increased by n at any view() and toggleview(),
if n is the number of clients in the view
- corner cases for togglefloating()
- I dislike adjustborder() altogether
So my proposal is: reverting to old behavior (nonoborder), and for
those who like it, use a config.h function like:
void toggleborder(const Arg *arg) {
borderpx = 1 - borderpx;
arrange();
}
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Kind regards,
--Anselm
I'm pro too, as I really dislike the noborder.
-Ph
--
Premysl Anydot Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:53:41 +0100
Antoni Grzymala ant...@chopin.edu.pl wrote:
Anselm R Garbe dixit (2009-02-19, 13:34):
Hi,
I dislike the recent addition of the 0 border if only 1 tiled client
is in the view, reasons:
- gained screen real eastate is very minimal
- configure events are increased by n at any view() and
toggleview(), if n is the number of clients in the view
- corner cases for togglefloating()
- I dislike adjustborder() altogether
So my proposal is: reverting to old behavior (nonoborder), and for
those who like it, use a config.h function like:
void toggleborder(const Arg *arg) {
borderpx = 1 - borderpx;
arrange();
}
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Agreed. Seems more consistent and elegant. Still, perhaps we can
rethink the concept of some visual indication if there's more than
one client in monocle (some kind sould posted a patch showing
[client/total] next to the tag bar in monocle mode, perhaps this
(or something similar) could be integrated right into the monocle
indicator).
Best,
There's already a patch for that. It's in the patches section of the
wiki.
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s+:+ a--- C++ UL--- P+ L++
E--- W++ N+ o-- K--- w-- O- M V-
PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP+++ t- 5- X R tv+
b+++ DI+ D++ G e+++ h-- r y+
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:34:48PM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote: And then define a key binding for it. Opinions? Seems I'm one of the few that prefers the no-border option. If there aren't any other clients on the screen, I don't see a need to indicate focus. And it looks quite nicely minimal, especially on small screens like the Eee. So, if it does change, please do leave it optional. Thanks, David
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
A patch to remove adjustborder is attached.
2009/2/19, David E. Thiel l...@redundancy.redundancy.org:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:34:48PM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
And then define a key binding for it.
Opinions?
Seems I'm one of the few that prefers the no-border option. If there
aren't any other clients on the screen, I don't see a need to indicate
focus. And it looks quite nicely minimal, especially on small screens
like the Eee. So, if it does change, please do leave it optional.
Thanks,
David
--
http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
diff -r a98f0e8ea6cb dwm.c
--- a/dwm.c Sat Feb 14 11:21:24 2009 +
+++ b/dwm.c Thu Feb 19 20:32:45 2009 +0100
@@ -128,7 +128,6 @@
} Rule;
/* function declarations */
-static void adjustborder(Client *c, unsigned int bw);
static void applyrules(Client *c);
static void arrange(void);
static void attach(Client *c);
@@ -246,16 +245,6 @@
/* function implementations */
void
-adjustborder(Client *c, unsigned int bw) {
- XWindowChanges wc;
-
- if(c-bw != bw) {
- c-bw = wc.border_width = bw;
- XConfigureWindow(dpy, c-win, CWBorderWidth, wc);
- }
-}
-
-void
applyrules(Client *c) {
unsigned int i;
Rule *r;
@@ -939,12 +928,9 @@
void
monocle(void) {
- unsigned int n;
Client *c;
- for(n = 0, c = nexttiled(clients); c n 2; c = nexttiled(c-next),
n++);
for(c = nexttiled(clients); c; c = nexttiled(c-next)) {
- adjustborder(c, n == 1 ? 0 : borderpx);
resize(c, wx, wy, ww - 2 * c-bw, wh - 2 * c-bw, resizehints);
}
}
@@ -1349,8 +1335,6 @@
if(!c)
return;
if(ISVISIBLE(c)) { /* show clients top down */
- if(c-isfloating || ntiled 1) /* avoid unnecessary border
reverts */
- adjustborder(c, borderpx);
XMoveWindow(dpy, c-win, c-x, c-y);
if(!lt[sellt]-arrange || c-isfloating)
resize(c, c-x, c-y, c-w, c-h, True);
@@ -1414,7 +1398,6 @@
/* master */
c = nexttiled(clients);
mw = mfact * ww;
- adjustborder(c, n == 1 ? 0 : borderpx);
resize(c, wx, wy, (n == 1 ? ww : mw) - 2 * c-bw, wh - 2 * c-bw,
resizehints);
if(--n == 0)
@@ -1429,7 +1412,6 @@
h = wh;
for(i = 0, c = nexttiled(c-next); c; c = nexttiled(c-next), i++) {
- adjustborder(c, borderpx);
resize(c, x, y, w - 2 * c-bw, /* remainder */ ((i + 1 == n)
? wy + wh - y - 2 * c-bw : h - 2 * c-bw), resizehints);
if(h != wh)
@@ -1713,7 +1695,7 @@
die(usage: dwm [-v]\n);
if(!setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ) || !XSupportsLocale())
- fprintf(stderr, warning: no locale support\n);
+ fputs(warning: no locale support\n, stderr);
if(!(dpy = XOpenDisplay(0)))
die(dwm: cannot open display\n);
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41:04AM -0800, David E. Thiel wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:34:48PM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote: And then define a key binding for it. Opinions? Seems I'm one of the few that prefers the no-border option. If there aren't any other clients on the screen, I don't see a need to indicate focus. And it looks quite nicely minimal, especially on small screens like the Eee. So, if it does change, please do leave it optional. Thanks, David I also prefer having no borders when there's one client in a tag. It feels kinda weird having a red border (the color in my setup), but I wouldn't mind patching it as suggested, should this feature be removed.
Re: [dwm] Issues with border
I also like the no-border behavior from a clarity point of view. My situation is similar to Julio's in that I also use a very bright color for the focused border and a very dark gray for the unfocused border. This makes it quick and easy to see when a client has focus. When there is only one client in view, however, the bright orange border looks awkward and unnecessary around that single client. There is also the case with low-resolution screens. When I'm using dwm on a small screen I tend to use monocle alone since tiling doesn't always give enough space for several clients. When monocle is active I prefer not to see a border. I suppose a custom function in config.h could be used if this feature is removed. On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Julio Missao julio.mis...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41:04AM -0800, David E. Thiel wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:34:48PM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote: And then define a key binding for it. Opinions? Seems I'm one of the few that prefers the no-border option. If there aren't any other clients on the screen, I don't see a need to indicate focus. And it looks quite nicely minimal, especially on small screens like the Eee. So, if it does change, please do leave it optional. Thanks, David I also prefer having no borders when there's one client in a tag. It feels kinda weird having a red border (the color in my setup), but I wouldn't mind patching it as suggested, should this feature be removed.
