Re: [wmii] answers to IRC comments

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:28:39 +0200

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Denis Grelich <> wrote:
> >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 problem is that the rules (and hence the 'default' view) are
> written (and applied) in wmiirc, which is after wmiiwm is started.
> Since it is possible that wmii is run after some other clients already
> exist (when wmii is run from an xterm for instance), a fallback tag is
> needed (since all clients need at least one tag, and there is no
> default tag to give to clients that exist already before wmiirc is
> run). In fact, one doesn't even _have_ to write any rules at all; in
> that case, clients must still get a tag though...

Even if one would assume that /def/rules is not allowed to be
empty, having no nil-tag won't suffice, because it is
indecisable if a pattern will match or not, e.g. assume:

/foo/ -> bar

as only rule, it could be checked to be valid syntax and a valid
rule, though having this without a hardcoded default tag would
result in clients which get invisble for ever.
That's why a default nil-tag is necessary.


 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Fri May 12 2006 - 17:28:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:04:57 UTC