Oh, and please, stop fucking over the definition of every term you use. By definition multiple tags can be attached to the same object; "multitag" is a redundant and nonsense term.
Thanks uriel On 4/9/06, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you described is called "named workspaces", and it *SUCKS*, that is > what ion has(had?), and it totally fucking sucks. The whole point of tags > is that you can attach as many tags as you like to every object, and then > pick your current selection from the list of tags. The whole point is to > have multiple _views_ that are _overlapping_ sets. So that your "code" > view can contain windows that are also running on another host and are > accordingly tagged, as someone pointed out, or that a web browser can be > tagged as "web" and as "documentation", or whatever. > > What is totally retarded is to allow concurrent selection of more than one > current tag at the same time, because it makes the current state much more > confusing, and provides zero extra functionality that can't be archived by > just adding an extra tag to the union of the groups you want to tag. > > The problem I suspect is that you have yet to provide any sane mechanism > to easily tag windows on the fly, so no wonder it is hard to use. As usual > you discard ideas before properly putting them into practice, and make > judgements based on incomplete data and your own braindamaged personal use > patterns. > > And I can't be bothered to read the code anymore, because it make me ill, > but I bet that those hundreds of lines of code you talk about are totally > gratuitous fluff, multiple concurrent tag selection certainly needs much > more code to merge the sets dynamically and to keep the state not only per > tag, but per set of tags. > > Now shout and scream about how wrong I am, I just don't care anymore > because you keep arguing, and keep being proved wrong, and you never > learn. > > uriel > > P.S.: I think that the next time I hear a totally idiotic argument > justified by some irrational statement about lines of code I will just > reformat my last lunix box with Plan 9 and forget all this idioticy. There > is nothing I hate more than someone doing braindamaged abominations in the > name of a good cause. > > On 4/7/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I used the recent version for at least several weeks and noticed > > that I never need any client containing more than a single tag. > > > > But handling stuff like 1+2+foobar in .../<client>/tags file, > > means several overhead (for those who are familiar with the wmii > > source code, the Frame struct has been invented esp. for this > > reason). In other words, this overhead means several hundred > > lines of code. > > > > Thus I propose, to only allow a tag per client. This would > > result in something like a (it is really a superset if you think > > further about it) workspace-alike approach, though it is more > > simple than workspace handling, and we got already all > > mechanisms to run specific classes/instances of clients in > > specific tags. The overall concept won't change, except > > disallowing tagging a client with more than one tag, and the > > removal of * tag. > > > > I know that this is somewhat like the ws-approach, but I see no > > need for the special complexity... > > > > Any concerns removing that? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii > > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
