Re: [dwm] dvtm suggestion

Donald Chai wrote:
>>> - The implementation of tagging is contrary to the suckless philosophy:
>>> http://www.suckless.org/common/
>>
>> I agree, however this is because the various functions take char* arrays
>> instead of an Arg union. This makes it impossible to specify bit masks.
>> We could of course change this but it would break the "new" command
>> interface[1].
>
> umm...atoi()? :)

This won't work, because we don't know the type of the arguments.

  echo focus $DVTM_WINDOW_ID > $DVTM_CMD_FIFO
  echo create \'irssi -c irc.freenode.net\' > $DVTM_CMD_FIFO

In the first case the focus command takes an integer, however create
expects a string. Storing the the argument data type in the Cmd struct
would be ugly and inflexible.

>>> - The "focusn" procedure takes away valuable key bindings that I use
>>> for tagging.
>>
>> I personally find this fast selection quite useful, but it's probably
>> true that when your working with tags you have less windows per view and
>> the quick selection is no longer that important.
>
> Another thing is that since I use dvtm when I can't use dwm, I have
> ALT-j cycle through windows, rather than "CTRL-g j". So I don't ever
> have to punch in "CTRL-g j CTRL-g j" :)

Ah I see.

>>> An unrelated comment: there's some code in madtty.c to work around
>>> some issue in PuTTY. It doesn't seem to make a difference for me (I
>>> use PuTTY), but perhaps a better solution is to call define_key from
>>> the frontend (i.e dvtm.c).
>>
>> Does this mean the keypad works for you within putty?
>
> The keypad works just fine without any hacks in dvtm. PuTTY just happens
> to be set up incorrectly by default. TERM is set to xterm, so one should
> just go to Terminal -> Keyboard and set "The Function keys and keypad"
> to "Xterm R6".

Yes indeed, the handling of \e0[n] isn't needed.

Regards,
Marc

-- 
  Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0