Re: [dwm] feature freeze, please test

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 03:12:38PM +0200, yy wrote:
> 2008/6/14 yy <yiyu.jgl_AT_gmail.com>:
> > About the mouse warping issue we have discussed in #dwm, forget it, I
> > can get the desired behavior with a little config.h modifications.
> > I add:
> >
> > void
> > warptosel(const Arg *arg) {
> > if(sel)
> > XWarpPointer(dpy, None, sel->win, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > }
> >
> > and then, in buttons definitions:
> >
> > { ClkWinTitle, 0, Button1, warptosel, {0} },
> > { ClkWinTitle, 0, Button1, movemouse, {0} },
> > { ClkWinTitle, 0, Button3, resizemouse, {0} },
> > { ClkWinTitle, 0, Button4, focusstack,
> > {.i = -1 } },
> > { ClkWinTitle, 0, Button5, focusstack,
> > {.i = +1 } },
> >
> > and that's all. So I'd suggest to not touch dwm.c any more, and this
> > message will stay here as a reference for other people if they are
> > interested.
> >
>
> I have reverted the ButtonPressMask in the root win and added
>
> else
> click = ClkWinTitle;
>
> after the last else if in buttonpress, if you add this to the config.h
> modifications in my previous message managing windows in the floating
> layout is really comfortable, just click in the root window. I think
> further thinking is needed before getting rid of root click events
> (though this solution is not definitive, it still has the problem of
> window borders treated like the root win...). What do other people
> think about this?

The only thing I dislike is the reuse of ClkWinTitle for the
root window -- if we want to do that, we need to re-introduce
ClkRootWin.

Also, is the warp really necessary or shouldn't the handling be
the same as in resizemouse?

Kind regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361