Re: [dwm] configuration

On 8/1/06, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_10kloc.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:07:43AM -0400, Juan Fuentes wrote:
> > On 8/1/06, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_10kloc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >While being offline on Crete, I thought about configuration
> > >of dwm at the beach (and in the salt water of the Aegaeis)...
> > >
> > >I pretty much disliked in dwm-0.5 to have to edit several
> > >different files to customize the beast for my needs, that's why
> > >I decided to use CPP and a config.h file in the future (already
> > >in hg tip), even if it might be ugly.
> > >
> > >The config.h file defines several macros, esp. TAGS, DEFTAG,
> > >CMDS, KEYS, and RULES. Those contain the static struct definitions
> > >defined in the .c files before.
> >
> > I'm new to the list, and new to the window manager, and let me
> > tell you it's the best I've used in all my years in Unix. That
> > being said I have one question why are you not using the
> > struct definitions directly instead of the macros? I have an
> > idea why you did it, but like to know your reason :).
>
> In dwm-0.5 I used the struct defintions directly, which was the
> reason for editing several files actually.

Yes I'm using 0.5.

I tried to use information hiding whenever possible to declare
> things static that they belong to the specific object file only
> (e.g. the keys defintion only belongs to event.o, the rules
> defintion only belongs to tag.o). There are technical reasons
> as well which make it impossible to define some data structures
> globally without cluttering all object files (like keys).

That's what I thought, none the less may I suggest a small comment, to avoid
the visual shock
of the plain "CMDS" on the code?

Also, the way it is done in the current way also keeps the
> binary pretty small (the stripped dwm binary has 27692 bytes for
> me.

Cool, will download tonight to try it out.

Thanks,

Juan Fuentes
Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 15:30:45 UTC