On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:23:42 -0500 "Todd T. Fries" <[email protected]> wrote: > Penned by Mike Belopuhov on 20120609 6:17.29, we have: > | On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> > | wrote: > | > personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with > | > commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts > | > on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to > | > many people with restricted vertical space ;) > | > > | > but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling > | > WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need > | > various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. > > On the tiling thread, so long as tiling is contained behind non default > options and not seen otherwise, I don't see the harm. Yes there's more > code, but in this day and age size of the binary is not going to make a > huge difference.
I'm not worried about the size of the binary, I'm more worried about the number of lines of code this will end up adding; soon enough people will send patches for this and that to suit their tiling needs. Once you go down that road ...
