Re: [dev] [dwm] [patch] config.o

From: Connor Lane Smith <cls_AT_lubutu.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:25:22 +0100

On 15/05/2016, Hiltjo Posthuma <hiltjo_AT_codemadness.org> wrote:
> I'm against this idea. It is simpler to hack if everything is one file which
> is
> normal for alot of suckless tools. It is not very clear to me what is
> considered a config or "the code" neccesarily.

I personally feel that the benefits of having only one file are lost
if that file is very large. It would be nice, I think, if dwm were
split over a few files. Code dealing with different data structures
being grouped together is more helpful, I feel, than putting all of
the functions in together, alphabetically.

But I'm not sure this is how it should be done. Some functions, the
ones dealing with the mouse especially, seem out of place in config.c,
but are there because they are used as button handlers and I put all
of the functions with that signature into config.c. On reflection I
think that if this were done then the button handlers in that case
should be wrappers for another function in the core dwm code which
actually does the mouse stuff.

And as Kamil says, it would break everyone's configurations. Still, I
think the layouts at least would be better placed in the config, since
there's really no reason for them to be in dwm.c, and that would
encourage people to make their own layouts in their config instead of
being inclined to patch dwm proper.

Ultimately though I think this patch might just be too ambitious,
which is one reason I was hesitant to post it. But it may still be
food for thought.
Received on Sun May 15 2016 - 16:25:22 CEST