Re: [RP] More on maximization

[Peter Seebach]

In message <address@hidden>, shawn writes:
>ratpoison doesn't work well with all applications. This is because it
>attempts to handle windows in a way most people writing X programs
>wouldn't think of. As a result, we have programs that are hopelessly
>stuck in the paper-shuffling paradigm. Naturally, these
>many-windowed-apps are hard to use in ratpoison because the program
>EXPECTS you to shuffle its windows into a suitable distribution around
>your screen.

Or to have the application shuffle them itself.

>The point of ratpoison is not to get solaris VI to run in an Xterm, or
>make sure Angband's windows are configured optimally. The point of
>ratpoison is to allow you to run Emacs without needlessly taking up
>space for a title bar, or maximizing the window manually. Should you
>need to open another program (God forbid) ratpoison will handle it,
>albeit not always usably. And of course, ratpoison is designed so you
>don't have to use the rat.

Yup.

>You're request but an extention of the arm of the wit-less, mouse
>driven, paper-shuffling, dopes that ratpoison attempts to free us
>from. If you want to shackle youself back in prison, be my guest. But
>don't drag us in with you.

I think you may be misunderstanding.  I don't want to use the mouse, and the
program in question doesn't need a mouse.  What it does is something like this

+------+ +----+
|      | |    |
|      | +----+
|      | +----+
+------+ +----+

so it can use different fonts in different windows without a lot of overhead.

No mousing involved.

I love the idea of key bindings as the primary way of interacting with windows; 
what
I don't like is the assumption that it's never, ever, ever, useful or even 
acceptable
to have two windows visible.  A window manager just like ratpoison, but which 
honored
geometry requests, would be a lot more useful, even without a mouse.

-s