2010/8/8 Kris Maglione :
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:36:24AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>>
>> It's so sad to see that suckless developers don't want to add 10 lines
>> to the code to improve it just because *the developers* think it's
>> useless.
>>
>> Maybe for people it's useless, but for othe
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:36:24AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
It's so sad to see that suckless developers don't want to add 10 lines
to the code to improve it just because *the developers* think it's
useless.
Maybe for people it's useless, but for others it can be useful. Sad.
Don't get piss
Refuse to add code is sad but allright. Refuse to remove code would be real
problem.
Dne 8.8.2010 9:36 "David DEMELIER" napsal/a:
2010/7/27 Anselm R Garbe :
> Hi David,
>
> On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> There is ...
It's so sad to see that suckless developers don't want to ad
2010/7/27 Anselm R Garbe :
> Hi David,
>
> On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
>> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
>> WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is really impo
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 01:46:02PM +0300, hiro wrote:
Yes, you can. fontconfig is purely a client-side library. On the
other hand, Xft requires it, and therefore so does everything
built on GTK, Qt, FLTK, or Java. More sinister, ghostscript also
requires it, and so does xetex (most distressingly)
> Yes, you can. fontconfig is purely a client-side library. On the
> other hand, Xft requires it, and therefore so does everything
> built on GTK, Qt, FLTK, or Java. More sinister, ghostscript also
> requires it, and so does xetex (most distressingly). It will be
> a bad day when I meet Kieth Packa
On 31 Jul 2010, at 3:33, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 02:12:39AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
On 28 Jul 2010, at 2:24, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
I have to admit that I don't make a strong distinction between XML
and Java
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 02:12:39AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
On 28 Jul 2010, at 2:24, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
I have to admit that I don't make a strong distinction between XML and
Java, but fontconfig really isn't X. It's just an exte
On 28 Jul 2010, at 2:24, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and
applyrules
On 27 Jul 2010, at 1:03, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:53:12AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
On 26 Jul 2010, at 11:48, Rob wrote:
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of
role
rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
W
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and applyrules()
with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>> I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and applyrules()
>> with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt that many client make
>> actually use of WM_WINDO
2010/7/27 Rob :
> On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> Hello dear dwm users,
>
> hi
>
>> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
>> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
>> WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is re
On 27 July 2010 01:35, Kris Maglione wrote:
...
> Not so much. There's quite easy if you allow C99, anyway.
>
> typedef struct {
> char *class;
> char *regex;
> int ord;
> } Prop;
>
> struct {
> char *Rule;
> RuleFn fn;
> RuleArg arg;
> } rules[] = {
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:11:05AM +0100, Rob wrote:
On 27 July 2010 00:53, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
...
An idea crossed my mind, I don't know if it's worth anything. I thought of
adding a pair of fields to dwm's window-matching array to match any X
property set on a window. I don't know how
On 27 July 2010 00:53, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
...
> An idea crossed my mind, I don't know if it's worth anything. I thought of
> adding a pair of fields to dwm's window-matching array to match any X
> property set on a window. I don't know how the typing would work, perhaps it
> could involve
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:02:28AM +0100, Rob wrote:
On 27 July 2010 00:35, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:48:02PM +0100, Rob wrote:
On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
rules for clients. I expl
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:53:12AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
On 26 Jul 2010, at 11:48, Rob wrote:
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is
On 27 July 2010 00:35, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:48:02PM +0100, Rob wrote:
>>
>> On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
>>>
>>> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
>>> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name usi
On 26 Jul 2010, at 11:48, Rob wrote:
On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER
wrote:
Hello dear dwm users,
hi
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:48:02PM +0100, Rob wrote:
On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is really
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and applyrules()
with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt that many client make
actually use of WM_WINDOW_ROLE in a consistent way, which is why I
believe there is no grea
On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
> Hello dear dwm users,
hi
> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
> WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is really important
> and usefu
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:32 PM, David DEMELIER
wrote:
> Hello dear dwm users,
>
> Of coure we could use the `title' rules but it's different on each
> locale you are using so it sucks as well.
Yay! One more reason why locales are totally and terminally braindead!
(As if we needed any more reas
Hi David,
On 26 July 2010 22:32, David DEMELIER wrote:
> There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
> rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
> WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is really important
> and useful.
>
> Example : y
Hello dear dwm users,
There is something that make me sad with dwm, there is a lack of role
rules for clients. I explain : clients have instance and name using
WM_CLASS, but there is also WM_WINDOW_ROLE which is really important
and useful.
Example : you want your firefox window tiled but not the
26 matches
Mail list logo
