Re: [dwm] bitarray and void *arg (was: using bitaray for tags (PATCH))

Hi!

I added the void *arg feature to dwm and diffed it together with the
other changes. Please review the patch carefully, as I changed a lot.

Thanks!

2008/5/21, Enno Gottox Boland <gottox_AT_gmail.com>:
> Here is yet another update to the patch which includes chances
> discussed on #dwm.
>
> 2008/5/21, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org>:
>
> > Hi I like your patches (also the version of anydot).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:49:16AM +0200, Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
> > > 2008/5/21, Szabolcs Nagy <nszabolcs_AT_gmail.com>:
> > > > in config.h referencing tags has changed in rules but not in keys.
> > > Yes, arg has discussed yesterday if it's possible to change const char
> > > *arg to void *arg. if this works, i'll change the key behavior too.
> >
> >
> > Ok, I won't touch the code until the evening today, so feel free
> > to use the (int[]) 1 syntax, we are going to change the
> > argument of Key-functions to void *.
> >
> >
> > > > the (1 << tagnum) in rules is a bit nasty
> > > > it is probably nicer to do the shifting in setup();
> > > you mean in applyrules? - No I don't think so. It adds much more
> > > flexibility. You can define bitmasks as 0b10001 to tag a client to the
> > > first and the fifth tag or you can use ~0 to make it "sticky".
> >
> >
> > I agree, that allows also to get rid of cloned rules.
> >
> >
> > > > instead of
> > > > i < LENGTH(tags) && i < sizeof(int) * 8;
> > > > what about checking once
> > > > if(LENGTH(tags) > sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT)
> > > > eprint("Maximum number of tags: %d\n", sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT);
> > > > in setup();
> > > The problem about this is it denies users from using one config.h with
> > > many tags on different architectures. Furthermore I wouldn't check
> > > this at runtime but at compiletime. (maybe we can use "#warning" as
> > > compromise)
> >
> >
> > Well, regarding to
> >
> > http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/C_CPP/comp.lang.c/2005-01/1697.html
> >
> > a compile time evaluation isn't possible. So I think we should
> > stick to Szabolcs proposal to reject the setup in setup():
> >
> > if(sizeof(unsigned int) * CHAR_BIT < LENGTH(tags))
> > eprint("error: number of tags is restricted to: %u\n", sizeof(unsigned int) * CHAR_BIT);
> >
> > Usually nobody will use more than 16 tags imho, so that we
> > should not expect a problem here if sizeof(int) is only 2 on
> > some exotic hosts.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > --
> > Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
> http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
>
>

-- 
http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro
http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)