Hm, seems like there was still a crash in the previous version which I also forgot to actually attach. I do think this is the cleanest way to circumvent the crashing. Let me know what you think!
From: jthidskes_AT_outlook.com
To: dev_AT_suckless.org
Subject: RE: [dev] [DWM] Patch: stack mfact
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:25:12 +0100
static const unsigned int minwsz = 10; /* Minimal heigt of a client for smfact */
Let me know what you think of this approach!
From: jthidskes_AT_outlook.com
To: dev_AT_suckless.org
Subject: RE: [dev] [DWM] Patch: stack mfact
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:13:37 +0100
I tried disabling html email, but I can't find anything in the settings. I'll do a search later today to see if I missed something. Sorry guys!
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:21:42 +0000
> Subject: Re: [dev] [DWM] Patch: stack mfact
> From: raphlalou_AT_gmail.com
> To: dev_AT_suckless.org
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Jente Hidskes <jthidskes_AT_outlook.com> wrote:
> > I meant that once we would resize clients too much (which causes the crash)
> > we could simply 'hide' them 'underneath' the stack, like the deck layout
> > does. Could you elaborate on the nstack approach? I'm not fully
> > understanding where you're coming from.
>
> The approach of hiding the clients that would cause the crash is a good idea.
>
> The approach with nstack would be to have a variable somewhere that indicates
> the maximal number of clients that can be shown in the stack area. Thus one
> would set this limit in their conf.h (and possibly a couple of entries in
> their key array to tweak the value) and when the number of clients in the
> stack area grows over nstack, the additional ones would simply not be shown.
> Like your deck approach but with a custom number of clients rather than just
> one.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> ______________
> Raphaël Proust
>
Received on Thu Mar 28 2013 - 17:43:43 CET