Re: [wmii] answers to IRC comments

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:18:15 +0200

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 04:57:02PM +0200, Denis Grelich wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:59:00 +0200
> "Anselm R. Garbe" <> wrote:
> > Allowing empty views (at least 1 per time) would at least need
> > special handling for the nil view, which is the internal
> > fallback. /def/rules defines the default tag, but without
> > auto-destroying empty views until a select, one has to at least
> > auto-destroy the nil view if it is empty, otherwise you always
> > end up in that view on startup.
> > Might be a better way for wmii-4. I can agree with the need for
> > more predictability with view destroying.
> Even going back to the last used view is not really
> predictable from a user's point of view. If the user wants to
> do something else than that what he does on the »last used
> view«, it breaks his work flow. On the other hand, why is a
> nil view needed at all? One could start in the view with the
> default tag, instead in a nil view. No need to apply a rule
> for the first windows then, and absolutely no need for a nil
> view. Clean and simple. (I'm so bold and claim that, although
> I didn't look into the source code ;)

The nil-tag view is necessary in the case when /def/rules gets
blanked or never written (blank by default) and wmiiwm is run
without wmiirc (just as an example), which is possible actually.

 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Fri May 12 2006 - 17:18:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:04:56 UTC