Re: [dwm] Re: master size for each tag patch

Your resolution isn't huge. It's vital minimum for careless coding. I
had 1680x1050 too, but had to sell my desktop computer to afford
laptop =(

On 2/14/07, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:16:00PM +0100, Marek Bernat wrote:
> > On 2/14/07, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >I got an idea: Don't do it, don't do it now ;)
> > >Stick with dwm as is.
> > >
> >
> > Hm, dwm, as it is now, isn't sufficient for me and my browser + dictionary
> > usecase.
> > I suppose quick hack will do for now
> > (that is, set specific master size when dictionary and browser tags are
> > viewed),
> > but I am sure there is a way to make this more clean and general.
> >
> > And anyway, now that I started to think about this, I am quite surprised
> > that everyone is content with only one master size for everything. It just
> > doesn't make sense. Or does every one have such a big screen that they don't
> > care?
>
> I usually stick to the master default (I rarely use Mod1-{g,s}).
> But my resolution is huge:
>
> http://www.suckless.org/shots/dwm-20070214.png
>
> Maybe instead of viewing the clients you want in a join view,
> check if it suffices tagging the dictionary client with more
> tags by default (you can use "1|2|3" - the OR in rule
> definitions for instance), e.g.
>
> { "Firefox", "3|4|6", False }
>
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 20:59:59 UTC