Re: [dwm] Updated bottom stack patch

From: Chris Webb <>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:25:40 +0100

Szabolcs Nagy <> writes:

> On 9/16/07, Julien Danjou <> wrote:
> > Except for people applying multiple patch on the now same and uniq file.
> > Everything will be fuzzy.
> that's why you should put your modifications in a separate .c file if
> possible

Hmm. Speaking personally, I think including a .c file in a header file is
a stylistically hideous hack---something I could never bring myself to do
in public! Patches which aren't just additional layouts or convenience
functions will probably non-trivially touch existing code anyway.

However, I suspect maintaining a local tree descended from a single
upstream dwm.c will be nicer than descending from multiple file dwm. In
particular, noise from variables moving from static to extern (e.g. in
taglayouts and pertag where previously local structures suddenly need
initialising) in patches goes away.

One question: why do you explicitly declare all dwm.c functions static
given that you only have a single source file anyway?


Received on Mon Sep 17 2007 - 13:25:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:53:30 UTC