[wmii] Re: multitags

From: Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:51:40 -0700

Oh, and please, stop fucking over the definition of every term you use.

By definition multiple tags can be attached to the same object;
"multitag" is a redundant and nonsense term.



On 4/9/06, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> What you described is called "named workspaces", and it *SUCKS*, that is
> what ion has(had?), and it totally fucking sucks. The whole point of tags
> is that you can attach as many tags as you like to every object, and then
> pick your current selection from the list of tags. The whole point is to
> have multiple _views_ that are _overlapping_ sets. So that your "code"
> view can contain windows that are also running on another host and are
> accordingly tagged, as someone pointed out, or that a web browser can be
> tagged as "web" and as "documentation", or whatever.
> What is totally retarded is to allow concurrent selection of more than one
> current tag at the same time, because it makes the current state much more
> confusing, and provides zero extra functionality that can't be archived by
> just adding an extra tag to the union of the groups you want to tag.
> The problem I suspect is that you have yet to provide any sane mechanism
> to easily tag windows on the fly, so no wonder it is hard to use. As usual
> you discard ideas before properly putting them into practice, and make
> judgements based on incomplete data and your own braindamaged personal use
> patterns.
> And I can't be bothered to read the code anymore, because it make me ill,
> but I bet that those hundreds of lines of code you talk about are totally
> gratuitous fluff, multiple concurrent tag selection certainly needs much
> more code to merge the sets dynamically and to keep the state not only per
> tag, but per set of tags.
> Now shout and scream about how wrong I am, I just don't care anymore
> because you keep arguing, and keep being proved wrong, and you never
> learn.
> uriel
> P.S.: I think that the next time I hear a totally idiotic argument
> justified by some irrational statement about lines of code I will just
> reformat my last lunix box with Plan 9 and forget all this idioticy. There
> is nothing I hate more than someone doing braindamaged abominations in the
> name of a good cause.
> On 4/7/06, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam_AT_wmii.de> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I used the recent version for at least several weeks and noticed
> > that I never need any client containing more than a single tag.
> >
> > But handling stuff like 1+2+foobar in .../<client>/tags file,
> > means several overhead (for those who are familiar with the wmii
> > source code, the Frame struct has been invented esp. for this
> > reason). In other words, this overhead means several hundred
> > lines of code.
> >
> > Thus I propose, to only allow a tag per client. This would
> > result in something like a (it is really a superset if you think
> > further about it) workspace-alike approach, though it is more
> > simple than workspace handling, and we got already all
> > mechanisms to run specific classes/instances of clients in
> > specific tags. The overall concept won't change, except
> > disallowing tagging a client with more than one tag, and the
> > removal of * tag.
> >
> > I know that this is somewhat like the ws-approach, but I see no
> > need for the special complexity...
> >
> > Any concerns removing that?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wmii_AT_wmii.de mailing list
> > http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
> >
Received on Sun Apr 09 2006 - 23:51:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:02:02 UTC