Re: [dev] [dwm] "reload" configuration?

From: Benjamin R. Haskell <>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:10:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Anselm R Garbe wrote:

> On 25 March 2011 13:47, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
>> [OT] Where did everyone pick up this shell scripting style with the
>> extra newline? ("while x\ndo\n" instead of "while x ; do\n"?)
> Old plain sh required the newline style (not sure if heirloom sh
> supports the semicolon list terminator). Of course pdksh or bash
> support both styles. So just a matter of style.

Interesting to know. Thanks.

>> I omitted too many details.  One reason I don't do that is that it's
>> not just "dwm" that I'm doing this for.  I'm migrating
>> (possibly/probably) from wmii, so I'd also like to be able to respawn
>> into wmii (or ion3 or ...).  I modified spawn() to handle any of
>> those cases by not forking.
>> But beyond that, looping or manually launching dwm doesn't solve the
>> problem that all the tag information is lost between restarts.  wmii
>> gets around it by dumping the tag information into X props (still
>> loses layout info, but keeping the tags is far better than dumping
>> everything onto a single tag). Has anyone patched dwm to do
>> something similar?
> In dwm this is usually done pre-actively through rules, not
> post-actively through state dumps

Huh. Okay. In the same way that wmii was a departure for me from
"normal"/"mainstream" wm's I guess I just have to get used to the local

> (another reason why I named dwm dynamic rather than static).

Seems slightly backwards to me (static set of rules, rather than
dynamically-assigned set of tags). But I can see what you mean. I'll
stop trying to drive my nail in with a screwdriver, so to speak.

Thanks much,
Received on Fri Mar 25 2011 - 14:10:57 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Mar 25 2011 - 14:12:02 CET