Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 04:11:19PM +0100, Uriel wrote: > > It is trivial to create an action that pops the current client into a > > new column. > > Want 3 cols without even touching the exclusive flag? Just start 3 > > clients, and pop 2 of them into new cols. > > So we come to the point where we need a 'new column' action, > right? So why do we need two ways then to create a new column? > > This discussion proves, that my decision yesterday has been > right.
I'm not so sure that there isn't a better compromise that will give most users what they want. Anselm wants to maintain column sizes when apps are closed and to not have to tag columns as exclusive. The opposing side doesn't want to waste space on empty columns and column bars. As a compromise, how about something I'll call "column memory". When the last app in a column is closed, the column disappears so that the remaining column gets the space. But, when the next app is started, wmii remembers that there was another column, so the app goes into a new column with the old column's position and size. You would, of course, need a command such as "forget column history" when you don't want this behavior. Also, there would be a new column command that works like the current snapshots, to place an active app into a new column initially. This scheme eliminates many of the negative features of the other approaches. Column sizes are maintained after apps are closed. Tagging of columns is not necessary, since a apps would go into a new column if the history exists and not otherwise. And no space is wasted on empty columns. Exactly how this works with three or more columns would need to be defined, but I think it is possible to be consistent. And I think using three columns is not all that common, so it probably souldn't be a big driver of the design. What does everyone think? Doug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
