On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote: > On 4/21/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that we can drop auto-destroying views and doing the > > destroy when the 'view' command is invoked instead. > > Being able to 'stay' on an empty view, but not being able to select a > random empty view, is inconsistent. I'm firmly against removing the > autodestroying of views, but if it was ever to happen, doing > xwrite /ctl view some_nonexisting_tag > should put you in the same situation as removing the last client of a > tag, for consistency's sake.
Yes, and that might be a side-effect which could be advantageous as well. I heared many users asking for a way to run specific rule-less clients in a specific view. Selecting an non-existent view and then running a bunch of clients would be a simple solution. Though, I'll need to think about it further. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
