On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:39:58AM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Ok, are there any concerns making this upstream again? (Yes I know, we
had this already in earlier versions, by that time it was called
togglelayout())... There were reasons for not toggling, basically it
was confusing to toggle
2008/11/20 Claudio M. Alessi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:39:58AM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Ok, are there any concerns making this upstream again? (Yes I know, we
had this already in earlier versions, by that time it was called
togglelayout())... There were reasons for not
Definitively i do _not_ want to add such code in upstream.
Claudio M. Alessi
--
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://dinotte.teroristi.org
2008/11/4 Neale Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
yy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After a quick look, I think the last check in the first if should be
arg-v != lt[sellt^1]
Yes, that's what it should have said. I wonder how it was working for
me before, when I sent the code to the list. [cue
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Anselm R Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, are there any concerns making this upstream again? (Yes I know, we
had this already in earlier versions, by that time it was called
togglelayout())... There were reasons for not toggling, basically it
was confusing to
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Anselm R Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, are there any concerns making this upstream again? (Yes I know, we
had this already in earlier versions, by that time it was called
togglelayout())... There were reasons for not toggling, basically it
was confusing to
Donald Chai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The proposed change would add inconsistency, unless if people want the
second MOD+1 to jump to the previously selected set of tags or do some
other weird thing.
I think that would make more sense if all available layouts were shown
at the top like the
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Neale Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donald Chai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The proposed change would add inconsistency, unless if people want the
second MOD+1 to jump to the previously selected set of tags or do some
other weird thing.
I think that would
Nice! I can't wait to try this out, I constantly hit mod-m to try to switch
out of monocle mode yet somehow I never thought to implement this feature...
-Niki Yoshiuchi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Neale Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This simple modification to setlayout causes a
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Neale Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This simple modification to setlayout causes a binding to toggle if it's
already in the requested layout.
Now Alt-M toggles in and out of Monocle, etc. I far prefer this
behavior, YMMV.
This is a great idea and one I
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:13:21AM -0700, Neale Pickett wrote:
This simple modification to setlayout causes a binding to toggle if it's
already in the requested layout.
void
setlayout(const Arg *arg)
{
sellt ^= 1;
if(arg arg-v (arg-v != lt[sellt]))
lt[sellt] = (Layout *)arg-v;
After a quick look, I think the last check in the first if should be
arg-v != lt[sellt^1]
--
- yiyus || JGL .
That did the trick, thanks!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM, yy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After a quick look, I think the last check in the first if should be
arg-v != lt[sellt^1]
yy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After a quick look, I think the last check in the first if should be
arg-v != lt[sellt^1]
Yes, that's what it should have said. I wonder how it was working for
me before, when I sent the code to the list. [cue twilight zone music]
Here's what it should have
14 matches
Mail list logo
