Re: [dwm] [PATCH] replacing "#define ISTILE" by "Bool istile"

Hi Sander,

"Sander van Dijk" <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Enno Gottox Boland <gottox_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is also possible. But my intention was that the user does not
> > decide wheather a function is tile or non-tile. It is the choice of
> > the programmer.
>
> Right, didn't look at it that way. Now that we're talking about
> ISTILE, I think there's some room for improvement in the way it
> functions/is used as well: right now, if ISTILE evaluates to true,
> this means that:
>
> 1. mwfact applies to that layout.
> 2. zoom applies to that layout.
> 3. you can push forced-floating clients back into that layout with Button2.
>
> I can imagine there are layouts where you want some, but not all of
> this, which is not possible with ISTILE alone. Not sure what the right
> way to change that would be (nor if there is one), but I think it's
> worth a thought.

I think we may need just some more things like ISTILE. (See my post in
the clientspertag thread for an illustration) In the long run this leads
to cluttering features into conditionals (in dwm.c) and splitting the
arrange()'s specifications over many #defines (in config.h) so there may
be a better way.

Been there. Done that. Didn't hurt but who knows what the scream is
like when the baby grows up.

BTW: This cries for bitfields. That wouldn't help much, though.

Regards
  - Robert Figura
Received on Sun Oct 28 2007 - 02:30:04 UTC