>>> sender: "Anselm R. Garbe" date: "Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:51:38PM +0200" <<<EOQ
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:29:26PM +0200, Stefan Tibus wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:51:34PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > > What about simply combining 'swap' and 'move' into one action
> > > (which could be still called swap)? Such an action creates
> > > columns on the attempt to swap with a non-existent column at
> > > boundaries. E.g. if only 1 columns exists with 2 clients, a swap
> > > east would create a new column and move the focused client
> > > there.
> > So swap to non-existing column would be a move and swap to
> > existing columns a swap. You still need an explicit move between
> > existing columns then... Or did I misunderstand "combining"?
>
> The idea is that there is no explicit move between columns - but
> it might be bad, dunno.
Yep, it might introduce more complexity instead of reducing it...
If swap is swap and move is move all is clear, but if swap is move or
swap depending on the context... it may be less typing (less shortcuts)
but it also will be more thinking before making a move...
Not good. Right now I don't have to think :D and I'd like to keep
it that way... ;)
All the best, and great job!
Alex
Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 19:18:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:04:15 UTC