On Jan 31, 2008 7:22 AM, Kris Maglione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:36:51PM -0800, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > >True, but it is an area nevertheless. And since > >columns (managed areas) are also areas, I would argue > >that it makes sense to number them as 0: floating, > >1..n: managed. > > I still don't agree. It has different semantics than the other > areas (i.e. it has no left/right, windows have their own widths, > you can't toggle between columns, only between floating and > managed...), and it was just confusing when it was called area > 0.
I'm with Kris here - I remember running into some wmii code (it may well still be there) doing something stupid like adjust the width of the floating area because there was a loop over areas which only made sense to apply on columns. It obviously wasn't manifesting into a real bug (I'd guess nothing actually looks at the floating area width because it isn't a column) which is why I didn't touch it, but it's not the sort of elegant design that inspires me, either. -sqweek
