Re: [wmii] Automatic destruction of views

From: Bill Puschmann <>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:32:36 -0400

I try not to disagree with Anselm ("biting the hand that feeds..."), but I
disagree with him if he's agreeing with Sander on this point.

On 4/21/06, Anselm R. Garbe <> wrote:
> Exactly.
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 03:03:42PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > On 4/21/06, Chris Foster <> wrote:
> > > The fact that I have to remember to add new clients before
> > > removing the old ones seems very clunky to me
> >
> > That is not the way it is: the whole point of dynamic window
> > management is that 'stuff' exists when you need it, and doesn't exist
> > when you don't need it. If you close all the clients in a view, you
> > apparently don't need the view at that moment (there's nothing in it
> > that you could possibly need, since it's empty). If at some point you
> > need that view again (which is when there's a client with that tag),
> > the view is automatically recreated.

Agreed.... and yet disagreed. We're not arguing against the removal of
views/tags completely. It's the dictatorial approach. Obviously I need to
still be looking at a view of tags (even if it's empty) because I control my
computer, not the other way around. I should be the one to choose what is
and is not necessary.

Plus, when you're not using "rules", WMII-3 will tag new windows with the
tag you're currently viewing. I find this incredibly convenient. However,
I am placed more and more often in a situation where I have to remember "I
cannot use this behavior if I close a window" - because if I close a window,
the last associated tag is removed and the view CHANGES even though I don't
want it to change. I want to continue working with that tagset. I don't
want to wait while the system redraws another set of windows and columns,
only to have to wait for it to resize half those windows while it creates a
new window, only to have to retag that new window to the view that I was
forced away from.

> > Conceptually, empty views are nonsense, and therefore they should be
> > in practice too...

This is conjecture. I believe the greeks found no use for the number "zero"
as well. However, we've come to realize that the empty set is valid.

> This typing-in annoyance should not be 'fixed' by doing something
> > that's conceptually completely wrong (empty views don't 'exist', so
> > the shouldn't be allowed to be viewed either).

Empty sets do exist. You just have to believe in them.

It's not the dynamic aspect of WMII-3 at stake. We're all in favor of
that. It's the random chaos of "dynamic" that we're trying to handle.
Received on Fri Apr 21 2006 - 15:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:03:06 UTC