Re: [dwm] dwm-5.3

From: Donald Chai <>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:52:55 -0800

On Dec 6, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Guillaume Quintin wrote:

> Why don't we change the way dwm gets its status text ? For example
> we could use the SIGALRM signal to call a "spawn2" :


> This will take only a few LOC, because all the reading p[0] part
> will be in fact the reading-stdin code from the run() function which
> will not be needed anymore. This has the advantages that one can
> change
> the status when dwm is running and there are no more "quitting"
> problem. This is just an idea, forgive me not to propose some real
> code. Well tell me what you think of this idea.

I'm not sure that changing the status script when dwm is running is a
big advantage. I'm already used to recompiling if I want to change
any setting. :)

The disadvantage of this approach is that the status script would
have to do a lot of work to maintain any state. Most people run
"date", "acpi" and other commands once a second, this would be fine
for them.

My status text includes the weather (updated only every 15min to
avoid hammering their servers), and the time (updated once a minute,
on the minute, to reduce my wakeups-per-second in PowerTOP). For me,
this SIGALRM and spawn2 would require that I store some temporary
data somewhere between invocations.

Here's my status script in case anyone would be interested. It
basically merges different status areas with arbitrary update
intervals for each.

Received on Sat Dec 06 2008 - 22:52:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Dec 06 2008 - 23:00:06 UTC