On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:26:26PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > >We removed the * tag because of several nasty corner-cases. What > >todo if all clients of a view are * tagged (destroy view, except > >last view? What is last view?), What todo with tags like > >*+foo+bar (they are valid syntax), quite nasty checks in > >update_view (separate handling in all places on view > >creation/destruction) etc. etc. - actually we had a hack of this > >stuff which consisted of about 30 lines or so, but it was quite > >ugly and duplicated much code. A * tag works contrary to the > >normal tagging because of this special treatment. > I think that it would be reasonable for the view to be both ordinary and > special. There could be a literal '*' view, while any windows with the tag > also show up in any other views. If no window _specifically_ has a certain > tag, that view doesn't exist. That would also make tags like '*+foo+bar' > sensible, since that window would hold the foo and bar views open, while > also living everywhere else. I would imagine it could be implemented in > much fewer than 30 lines that way. My point is, that one can see a window in all views with the current implementation already, if one adds the shortcut implementation (one line) I presented in this thread. Thus I see no need for a * tag.
Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
