Re: [dwm] placement of tags on titles

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:28:50 +0200 "Sander van Dijk" <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Stefan Tibus <sjti_AT_gmx.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:19:47 +0200 "Sander van Dijk"
> <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> It's open source, so basically the configuration options are
> unlimited; however, it's of course a good thing to provide an easier
> way of configuration for the things most likely to be changed (such as
> keybindings, tags, etc). That's why config.h was introduced (early
> versions of dwm still had those part spread out across the various
> source files, and the user had to grep for CUSTOMIZE to find them).
> Keeping the amount of configuration options in config.h to a minimum
> is a good thing to me, since that means that it'll always be easy to
> see what global options there are. By making all colors customizable
> through config.h, we'd only clutter it and make configuration harder;
> besides, having say 10 functional configuration options, and an equal
> amount (or more) for something as trivial as colorsettings misses the
> point I believe. dwm is obviously a wm that aims at functionality, not
> eyecandy...
First, it's not just about useless eyecandy, but about readability
of the status bar. And second, what's the problem in structuring
config.h and putting those (how many they ever be) trivial options
at the end? They won't clutter the more important and functionality-
related options which are at the beginning then.

> clutters it, making it harder to find the stuff that _does_ matter.
If we come to making it harder to find stuff, may I criticize then
that the entire source of dwm is not documented at all. It's really
hard to find out what one has to change if one is not already deeply
involved into the project. I will have to read the full source in
order to understand what all the functions do. Variable names are
often just one or two letters... That's not very friendly to be
understood and thus to be changed.
(There's not even a list of the functions which one may assign a
key-binding to.)

> I didn't mean that changing the colors is a bad thing, I meant that
> the procedure itself sucks because there's just way too much to
> configure (color here, color there, font such, font so, font again,
> some more colors, blablabla... Why no just _one_ font, for starters,
> and a whole lot less colors...)
If you don't want to configure it, you may leave it as it is. But
if some constant in the code can be given a use- and meaningful name,
why not do so and put it as option somewhere where others can find it?
(Instead of having anonymous numbers everywhere.)
And it's always easier to have several of these and set them to
the same value initially, than later trying to separate things that
have been referenced several times by a single constant name.

> PS. a little disclaimer: English is not my native language, which may
> occasionally lead to statements that appear harsher than I intend
> them. I'm just trying to state my oppinion, not to flame and/or make
> personal attacks...
The same applies to me...

Regards,
Stefan

-- 
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl