Re: [dwm] [dvtm-patch] Status bar optional

From: Claudio M. Alessi <>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:44:27 +0100

> I'm not trying to insult you, but I don't see the point of having the
> status bar as a compile time option.
The point is that if the code is not needed there is no reason to have
it, even why we have a larger binary and a slowest build time (other
than C statements and checks that will never be true).
Thanks to not insult me, btw ;-)

> I cannot try it know, but I think when you don't set the status text
> to anything (you don't use the -s option), you won't have the status
> bar. Adding complexity with the code with #ifdefs for this option is
> not a good idea, IMO.
That's the same with the mouse support which is not used at all
if you don't bind the keys. Though there is no need to build it
when not used. Why shouldn't be the same for the status bar?
I also wondering where all this complexity come from but please,
consider i'm a beginner of C programming so i'll appreciated any
eventually further technical explanation. A bit of patience!

> Maybe you want to have a look at
>, it is
> worth reading.
Yes, i understand your point and i also agree with some of
the things discussed in that paper. Though this is not a
portability issues nor, to me, a wrong use of the conditional
preprocessor statements. I'm just trying to remove stuff i
don't need. Remove them is not the same as not use them.

I appreciated your reply (and i will any further one). Please,
sorry for my (often wrong) english and have a nice day.

Claudio M. Alessi
Version: 3.1
GCS/MU d-@ s: a--> C++(+++) UB++>$ P+> !L E--- W++(+++)
N+@ o--> K? w+@> O-@> M- V? PS+@ PE+@ Y+ PGP> t(-)@ 5?
X+ R? tv-- b+> DI-- D? G e+@> h--@> r y*
Received on Tue Feb 19 2008 - 14:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:20:37 UTC