Re: [dwm] togglemax substiute in 4.9?

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:35:13 +0200

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:40PM +0200, yy wrote:
> 2008/4/8, Anselm R. Garbe <>:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Joerg van den Hoff wrote:
> > > as `togglemax' seems gone in 4.9: I agree, that `monocle'
> > > is very useful (and superior). the only problem is (seems?)
> > > that one cannot easily toggle back and forth to the previous
> > > layout. rather, one needs to cycle through all 4 layouts
> > > right now, it seems. this is not so nice...
> >
> > > question: is their a chance to get a kind of `togglemonocle'
> > > functionality into dwm without writing it myself? this would
> > > seem a frequent demand: activate monocle for some time than
> > > switch back to tiling (or whatever layout was in effect
> > > previously).
> >
> > What about direct layout activation using the layout symbol as
> > setlayout argument?
> >
> > As for setlayout() I consider having (const char *)-1 for the
> > previous layout, (const char *)1 for the next and NULL for
> > toggling between the current and previous one, if any.
> >
> > The same concept might be adapted for setgeom as well.
> >
> > Any complains?
> >
> I think that using the proposedlayout function as it was done in the
> past would be a better idea (and like it happens with tags if you use
> the last patch I've sent to the list), but I don't use different
> layouts any more, so my opinion is not important.

You mean if the setlayout is called with the same argument as at
the last time reverting to the pre-previous one? Well, with the
proposed layout browsing using (const char*)1 (currently NULL)
people would like to change the layout with one key combination

And using NULL for the behavior seems more flexible in this
regard, otherwise you always have to remember, which layout you
are using atm to toggle back to the previously used one. Though
I see the use-case of haven Mod1-m twice, maybe NULL and
second-time-same-argument should do the same to allow both

> > Any complains?
> >
> If we are coming back to reverse geometries per client, what's the
> point of resizing clients in focus changes? I think this will add
> unnecesary complexity. But again, I don't think my opinion is
> important.

What if monocle is used to work on floating clients as well?

I pretty much prefer the solution of only preserving the
previous window geometry of a client window and not treating
floating and managed geometries differently. If monocle works on
all clients, this would lead to unrevertable maximised floating
clients, which I dislike.

On the other hand, preserving the geometry for each layout seems
to be too memory-consuming, especially because the layout
algorithms are heavily dynamic.

Kind regards,

 Anselm R. Garbe >< >< GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Tue Apr 08 2008 - 14:35:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:32:10 UTC