On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:28:44PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > In this case, I've been agreeing with both sides.
> > Dominik has some very good points.
> > I don't agree about the Style code being a problem and therefore
> > shouldn
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > Considering Dominik's strong opinion, it might be a good idea
> > to hold that patch for a while.
...
> This is the only argument I see to do not apply the patch.
> So now if the patch is no
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
[snip]
> > > Of course Dan can speak for himself, but according to the mail
> > > archive he did neither vote for nor against the patch. Not that I
> > > think it matters.
> >
> > In general Dan does not vote. He gives arguments. At the e
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 19, 2003
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Should the StyleById
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> > >
>
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
>
> Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> vote
Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 08 Jun 2003 14:24:58 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
I've got some free time now and I was thinking of implementing the
WindowStyle command that was proposed ages ago. I think this means I
vote no (not very strongly) but I'd appreciate some help in reviewing
the proposa
On 08 Jun 2003 02:28:19 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> Well, the original idea that removes Style command completely was:
>
> AddToFunc StyleFunction I Next (Class XTerm) WindowStyle NoButton 6
>
> and StyleFunction is applied on all new windows.
There is a typo, it should be of course Th
On 08 Jun 2003 14:24:58 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
>
> Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> >Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> >votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
> >unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification
>
> I've got so
Olivier Chapuis wrote:
Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification
I've got some free time now and I was thinking of implementing the
WindowSt
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:54:14AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Ple
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 07 Jun 2003 22:18:20 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > WindowStyle does make sense as a separate command.
> > When it gets processed, it gets turned into a style
> > with an ID so that if there is a restart, it can get reapplied
> > to the window.
>
On 07 Jun 2003 22:18:20 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> WindowStyle does make sense as a separate command.
> When it gets processed, it gets turned into a style
> with an ID so that if there is a restart, it can get reapplied
> to the window.
>
> In the case you give above:
>
>Next (Class XTerm)
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > There was same talk about StyleById being temporary and you chose
> > WindowSty
On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> >
> > Seems that there is no conclusion he
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
>
> Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> votes for it (me and Mikh
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> your votes here.
>
Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
unclear vote (Dan)
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19 May 2003 22:38:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something.
> > I never completely un
On 20 May 2003 14:55:08 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> >
> > I thought about weither individual window style entries (one per window)
> > could be stored in a separate list and never be merged (only deleted),
> > i.e they alwa
On 20 May 2003 11:06:10 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > > _hack_ we can get it, so it
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> >
> > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> > code. Yes it is a "hac
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:32:03AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Some further explanations below.
>
> > > 3. It does not introduce a data type identifying a style, just
> > > passes lists of arguments to the style functions.
> >
> > Not sure to understand. There is a new element in the wind
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> >
> > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> > code. Yes it is a "hac
On 19 May 2003 22:38:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
>
> Maybe I'm missing something.
> I never completely understood all the ins and outs of the windowstyle
> proposal.
Some further explanations below.
> > 3. It does not introduce a data type identifying a style, just
> > passes lists of arguments to the style functions.
>
> Not sure to understand. There is a new element in the window_style
> structure xid (!=0 if and only if the window_style was generate
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
Maybe I'm missing something.
I never completely understood all the ins and outs of the windowstyle
proposal. Why isn't this:
Style [ id=$[w.id] ]
--
Dan Espen
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
> And it should work on the window context, a trivial change to the patch.
The patch does look pretty simple.
The patch lacks documentation and test cases.
--
Dan Espen
On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> code. Yes it is a "hack" it is not the new great "WindowStyle"
> command we want (which needs more
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:24:51PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> > >
> > As I said It is just a tm
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
> As I said It is just a tmp command.
If its just a temporary command, it would make sense to wa
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> your votes here.
>
I vote "yes". But maybe the patch should be applied later.
I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
_hack_ we can get it
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:22:58PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > A
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById.
> > > Style
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:39:30AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 08:52:23 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById.
> > > StyleById
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById.
> > StyleById applies styles to specific windows:
> >
> > Pick Style $[w.id] NoTi
On 19 May 2003 08:52:23 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById.
> > StyleById applies styles to specific windows:
> >
> > Pick Style $[w.id] NoTitle, !Bo
Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
Is this a final syntax we want to have? I prefer:
Pick WindowStyle NoTitle, !Borders
I think Tim suggested this syntax some years ago together with
SetupFunction, but I can't verify this right now.
I did, the spec is in WindowStyle_proposal.txt in CVS. I was waiting
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:52:23AM +0200, fvwm-workers wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > By the way I've noted a problem with the DestroyStyle cmd:
> >
> > - Start an xterm
> > - Style * SloppyFocus
> > - Style XTerm ClickToFocus
> > - DestroyStyle XTerm
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:01:38AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached to this msg 2 new cmds StyleById and DestroyStyleById.
> StyleById applies styles to specific windows:
>
> Pick Style $[w.id] NoTitle, !Borders
>
> DestroyStyleById can destroy such a style.
>
> The imp
On 19 May 2003 03:01:38 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> Pick StyleById $[w.id] NoTitle, !Borders
Is this a final syntax we want to have? I prefer:
Pick WindowStyle NoTitle, !Borders
Both StyleById and DestroyById (i.e. WindowStyle and DestroyWindowStyle)
don't make any sense on an une
43 matches
Mail list logo
