Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
> While you're looking at reworking the xrandr patch, it might be worth
> noticing the corner case where all displays are disabled. Unfortunately, at
> least with the version of the patch I tried, ratpoison does not seem to
> recover from the state with zero
Mathieu OTHACEHE @ 2016-11-27 (Sunday), 17:58 (+0100)
On the negative side, if the user unplug a screen and plug a different
screen, it will have the same id as the previously unplugged screen.
I would consider that expected behaviour. One could compare it with how a
newly opened window
Mathieu OTHACEHE writes:
>> No idea whether how stable would be the mapping between Xrandr ids and
>> ratpoison ids, though, as we don't control the former. There's not much
>> choice though, but 1. you already have implemented a screen_sort
>> function, and 2. this sounds
> No idea whether how stable would be the mapping between Xrandr ids and
> ratpoison ids, though, as we don't control the former. There's not much
> choice though, but 1. you already have implemented a screen_sort
> function, and 2. this sounds better than forcing the user to deal with
> numbers
Hi,
> I think this is headed in the wrong direction. There is no reason to
> disable this command when we can easily deal with the single available
> screen.
Yes I agree, it is not a very good idea after all.
Maybe we could copy the old behaviour by mapping the Xrandr identifier
to an integer
Mathieu OTHACEHE writes:
> Without xrandr support, sfdump command has no interest.
I think this is headed in the wrong direction. There is no reason to
disable this command when we can easily deal with the single available
screen.
Same thing for your sselect and srestore