Re: [dwm] Update: bottomstack patch for latest 4.4 tip

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 08:42:47AM -0400, James Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 12:53:46PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:09:54PM -0400, James Turner wrote:
> > > Well the zoom function seems to work, but increasing the master area
> > > does not. I changed part of the incmaster function within tile.c to
> > > if(lt->arrange == floating) return; but I still can't increase the
> > > master in the bottom stack layout mode. Any ideas?
> >
> >
> > Well I decided against making master global. I pushed a
> > changeset recently with following decisions:
> >
> > MASTER is renamed to MWFACT (master width factor) - which is
> > more precise.
> >
> > master in tile.c is renamed to mwfact, incmaster is renamed to
> > addtomwfact - which is also more precise.
> >
> > So this change also points out, that your bstack patch should
> > contain something like MHFACT (master height factor) as counter
> > part. Except of zoom(), which you can re-use from tile, I
> > propose you clone the addtomwfact() behavior as follows for
> > bstack:
> >
> >
> > /* static */
> >
> > static double mhfact = MHFACT;
> >
> > /* extern */
> >
> > void
> > addtomhfact(const char *arg) {
> > double delta;
> >
> > if(lt->arrange != bstack)
> > return;
> >
> > /* arg handling, manipulate mhfact */
> > if(arg && (1 == sscanf(arg, "%lf", &delta))) {
> > if(delta + mhfact > 0.1 && delta + mhfact < 0.9)
> > mhfact += delta;
> > }
> > lt->arrange();
> > }
> >
> >
> > And in config.h you add something like this (besides cloning
> > MHFACT similiar to MWFACT):
> >
> >
> > { MODKEY, XK_h, addtomwfact, "-0.05" }, \
> > { MODKEY, XK_l, addtomhfact, "0.05" } , \
> > { MODKEY, XK_h, addtomwfact, "-0.05" }, \
> > { MODKEY, XK_l, addtomhfact, "0.05" } , \
> >
> >
> > This is somewhat cumbersome for bstack, but the only other
> > option would be to design bstack as patch to tile.c.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
>
> Because of the nature of bstack, would it make more sense to just patch
> tile.c rather than make it it's own layout and clone the addtowfact
> function? Since changes are still happening I would like to take this
> time to make sure the patch is done the so called "correct" way.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> James Turner
> BSD Group Consulting
> http://www.bsdgroup.org

I went ahead and created a new patch that patches tile.c rather then
creating an all new bstack layout. You can find it here:
http://calminferno.net/files/dwm-4.4-bstack-tile.diff or attached.

-- 
James Turner
BSD Group Consulting
http://www.bsdgroup.org