Re: [wmii] Re: tags vs. views

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:02:17 +0200

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:55:38AM +0200, Stefan Tibus wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 09:57:32AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > I think you miss the point. If you select a view like '1+2' and
> > in the meantime you want to switch to '3' then you have to
> > explicitly to reselect '1+2' from the menu with entering '1+2'
> > again, although it is still cached. For singular views you got
> > shortcuts, they can be accessed very fast. That is why I create
> > a label especially because of those joint views, to access them
> > right faster through a mouse click, then entering the tag
> > combination again and again to the menu, once you want to switch
> > back to such a view.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with displaying cached views (they are
> > destroyed if no tag exists anymore, thus their lifetime is not
> > longer than singular tags).
> Well...I have on question here right now. Is 1+2 deleted as soon
> as there is no client of either tag or only if there is no client
> of both tags? In the latter case this may clutter your bar (which
> is, as we know of limited space up to now) if you do something
> like using views 1+2, 1+3, 1+4, 1+5 and deleting all clients of
> 2,3,4,5 but not of tag 1 would still keep those union views in the
> bar (I don't care about the cache size). If 1+2 is deleted as
> soon as there is no client of 2, then I think it's ok.
> Or in the case of 1+2+3 one may think of stripping this down to 1+3
> as soon as all tag 2 clients have gone.

This question is easy to answer: '+' corresponds to OR, thus a
joint view survives until the last client disappeares which is
related to any tag of the join. Though you'd normally not more
than 1 joint view from time to time, thus I see no problem
regarding bar space.


 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Fri Mar 31 2006 - 13:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:01:48 UTC