[dwm] Xinerama in the right way, bar position, togglebar(), setmwfact()?

From: Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:38:29 +0100

First of all I want to get rid of setmwfact, MWFACT and mwfact,
because I'd like to supply a saner way to setup the bar more
freely. Actually I consider the following values in config.h
(instead of BarPos):

/* bar position */
#define BX sx
#define BY sy
#define BW sw
#define BH bh

/* master area */
#define MX sx
#define MY sy + bh
#define MW ((int)(((float)sw) * 0.6))
#define MH sh - bh

/* tile area, might be on a different screen */
#define TX sx + MW
#define TY MY
#define TW sw - MW
#define BH MH

/* monocle area, might be restricted to a specific screen */
#define MOX sx
#define MOY MY
#define MOW sw
#define MOH MH

I know that are some LOCs in the config.h, but they will allow
to set dwm being used with Xinerama and without linking against
-lXinerama, and also without reimplementing tile() or monocle()
right NOW!

I also plan to get rid of togglebar(), if you see not much use
in the bar, put it on top of the T-area or M-area -- or move it

But this way, also the dzen-integration will be much easier and
in a Xinerama setup you can make sure to let the bar appear only
on a specific screen (or to let the T-area appear on a specific
screen only).

Actually the concept does only work up to 2 screens, but usually
most people don't have more than 2 screens, and if someone has
3 or more screens, he might want to write his own version of
tile() anyways.

So I ask, do you think this decision is right? It will make dwm
much simplier, Xinerama-capable and quite flexible in my eyes.

Getting rid of mwfact, togglebar for the prize of Xinerama and
monocle should be worth the effort, right?

Kind regards,

 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Wed Mar 05 2008 - 18:38:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:23:26 UTC