Re: [wmii] Automatic destruction of views

To belabor the point.

"Allowing empty view on last tagged client exit" was readded in March 8's
snapshot because of people complaining. It was then back to "auto-destroy"
on the 29th - I was being nice and not dragging the issue back up :)

Fair enough. Hope you enjoyed the walk. I'll be nice and quiet until
wmii-3 is officially released. After that, though.... the topic's fair
game :)

On 4/21/06, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam_AT_wmii.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > On 4/21/06, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam_AT_wmii.de> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> > > > Being able to 'stay' on an empty view, but not being able to select
> a
> > > > random empty view, is inconsistent. I'm firmly against removing the
> > > > autodestroying of views, but if it was ever to happen, doing
> > > > xwrite /ctl view some_nonexisting_tag
> > > > should put you in the same situation as removing the last client of
> a
> > > > tag, for consistency's sake.
> > >
> > > Yes, and that might be a side-effect which could be advantageous
> > > as well. I heared many users asking for a way to run specific
> > > rule-less clients in a specific view. Selecting an non-existent
> > > view and then running a bunch of clients would be a simple
> > > solution. Though, I'll need to think about it further.
> >
> > Well, if one can both stay on and select empty views, but they are
> > destroyed when they are left, then we would still have a consistent
> > way of dealing with empty views (they can be selected, but vaporize
> > into thin air when they aren't). It might be worth considering, but
> > we'll have to look out for cornercases:
> > - When clients are started in xinitrc, they initially get the fallback
> > 'nil' tag.
> > - then, when the wmiirc rules kick in, they are retagged to '1'.
> > - because this makes the 'nil' view empty, it is destroyed, and view
> > '1' is selected.
> > However, if empty views are allowed to keep focus, then what should
> > happen here? Should the empty 'nil' view keep focus, or should it be
> > treated specially and be the single one view the _is_ destroyed when
> > it's empty but still focussed? Should it also be destroyed when it's
> > empty and focussed, but there are no other views?
> >
> > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to go and change the autodest.
> > behavior so shortly before release...
>
> We have the same thoughts. I took a walk through the park and
> also considered the startup behavior. Thus I think we keep the
> auto-destroy stuff for the moment. We will see if people
> complain later again ;)
>
> 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 Fri Apr 21 2006 - 17:35:50 UTC