On 4/21/06,
Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed.... and yet disagreed. We're not arguing against the removal of views/tags completely. It's the dictatorial approach. Obviously I need to still be looking at a view of tags (even if it's empty) because I control my computer, not the other way around. I should be the one to choose what is and is not necessary.
Plus, when you're not using "rules", WMII-3 will tag new windows with the tag you're currently viewing. I find this incredibly convenient. However, I am placed more and more often in a situation where I have to remember "I cannot use this behavior if I close a window" - because if I close a window, the last associated tag is removed and the view CHANGES even though I don't want it to change. I want to continue working with that tagset. I don't want to wait while the system redraws another set of windows and columns, only to have to wait for it to resize half those windows while it creates a new window, only to have to retag that new window to the view that I was forced away from.
This is conjecture. I believe the greeks found no use for the number "zero" as well. However, we've come to realize that the empty set is valid.
Empty sets do exist. You just have to believe in them.
It's not the dynamic aspect of WMII-3 at stake. We're all in favor of that. It's the random chaos of "dynamic" that we're trying to handle.
Exactly.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 03:03:42PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> On 4/21/06, Chris Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that I have to remember to add new clients before
> > removing the old ones seems very clunky to me
>
> That is not the way it is: the whole point of dynamic window
> management is that 'stuff' exists when you need it, and doesn't exist
> when you don't need it. If you close all the clients in a view, you
> apparently don't need the view at that moment (there's nothing in it
> that you could possibly need, since it's empty). If at some point you
> need that view again (which is when there's a client with that tag),
> the view is automatically recreated.
Agreed.... and yet disagreed. We're not arguing against the removal of views/tags completely. It's the dictatorial approach. Obviously I need to still be looking at a view of tags (even if it's empty) because I control my computer, not the other way around. I should be the one to choose what is and is not necessary.
Plus, when you're not using "rules", WMII-3 will tag new windows with the tag you're currently viewing. I find this incredibly convenient. However, I am placed more and more often in a situation where I have to remember "I cannot use this behavior if I close a window" - because if I close a window, the last associated tag is removed and the view CHANGES even though I don't want it to change. I want to continue working with that tagset. I don't want to wait while the system redraws another set of windows and columns, only to have to wait for it to resize half those windows while it creates a new window, only to have to retag that new window to the view that I was forced away from.
> Conceptually, empty views are nonsense, and therefore they should be
> in practice too...
This is conjecture. I believe the greeks found no use for the number "zero" as well. However, we've come to realize that the empty set is valid.
> This typing-in annoyance should not be 'fixed' by doing something
> that's conceptually completely wrong (empty views don't 'exist', so
> the shouldn't be allowed to be viewed either).
Empty sets do exist. You just have to believe in them.
It's not the dynamic aspect of WMII-3 at stake. We're all in favor of that. It's the random chaos of "dynamic" that we're trying to handle.
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
