Re: [dwm] {V,H}RATIO

Hi,

I use nmaster quite often, because I want to switch between this two setups:
a) one master + several programs in the stack
b) two masters

Another thing that this shows is that ratios are needless to me. I just need
to be able to resize horizontally in a) and vertically in b) option,
respectively.

Regards, Marek

On 8/9/07, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:08:56PM +0200, pancake wrote:
> > Hi, i have finally patched my dwm with the latests mercurial
> > changes. and this is my config:
> >
> > { MODKEY, XK_h,
> inchratio, ".1" }, \
> > { MODKEY, XK_l,
> inchratio, "-.1" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_h,
> inchratio, ".2" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_l,
> inchratio, "-.2" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ControlMask, XK_j,
> incvratio, "-.1" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ControlMask, XK_k,
> incvratio, ".1" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_j, incnmaster,
> "1" }, \
> > { MODKEY|ShiftMask, XK_k, incnmaster,
> "-1" }, \
> >
> > The acceleration with inchratio is really soft and cool . Nice hit. But
> i would like
> > to be able to make the masterw smaller than the possible with the
> inchratio approach.
> >
> > These limits makes dwm look more claustrofobic. :)
> >
> > But i hardly dislike the incvmaster failsafe that makes clients
> dissapear from
> > the view. This breaks the dwm basics and makes the environment more
> confusing.
> >
> > I would remove this. or at least make it optional, but adopting the
> clientspertag
> > patch youll get a similar effect without collateral damages and with a
> more flexible
> > approach. Please consider it.
>
> Actually, more and more I come to the same conclusion. The ratio
> stuff just feels wrong. I also think the NMASTER thing feels
> wrong and should/might be removed.
>
> What is the impression of others regarding this?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
>
>
Received on Fri Aug 10 2007 - 09:25:53 UTC