[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Was: [RP] Patch for frames et al...

From: Mike Meyer
Subject: Re: Was: [RP] Patch for frames et al...
Date: Thu Nov 15 12:48:02 2001

Jonathan Walther <address@hidden> types:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:02:05PM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand that last one. How does RP help remove the
> > burden of managing windows? Maybe there's a paper on the philosophy
> > that I've missed.
> No ``paper''.  You just missed the IRC and beer sessions where this was
> hashed out.
> For instance, the fact that all windows start out maximized, and that
> you can't ``manage'' them by resizing them and moving them... that is
> the computer doing the work FOR you.  Its nice not to have to think
> about the extra crap.

Correct. But that's a property of paned window managers in
general. MS-Windows tries to do that by "remembering" a windows
positions, but MS-Windows has more problems than I care to think

> > Let me clarify: it should be possible to do "incredibly complicated
> > things" so long as doing them doesn't add noticable fat anywhere else.
> Come help us do the Common Lisp version.  Codewise its going to be even
> more stripped down than the current ratpoison.  But as a user, you'll be
> able to have it intern your own functions for various things.  The
> ultimate in customizability.  You don't like something?  Redefine the
> relevant hook functions in your .rc file.  Or redefine 'em on the fly...

Unless Common Lisp systems have gotten a *lot* better since I last
looked at them, that rp is going to be even more stripped down won't
matter much - the CL runtime will be bigger than the current

> > Your assumption is wrong. The "incredibly complicated things" could
> > involve nothing more than xterms. It's not quite that simple, but all
> > the tasks at hand could be done in xterms instead of the tools I'm
> > using - just not as well - without changing the things I want to do.
> What do you not want to do in xterms?  Concrete examples would help.

Edit. Issue commands. Watch console logs. I prefer xemacs for editing
to emacs in an xterm, and I prefer xconsole to running a command in an
xterm to monitor the log.

> > > Depends how you look at it.  The way I see it, it does one thing,
> > > namely it goes to the window you select.  You can take two paths to
> > > get there, but that isn't exactly the same as saying it does two
> > > different things.
> > To quote Tom Lehrer: "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd".
> No, Ryan is right.  Why don't you try the following behavior?

Actually, I was *agreeing* with him.

> When someone "goes" to a window, there are three possibilities:
>   a) Raise that window in the current frame.
>   b) If the window is already raised in a different frame, switch focus
>      to that frame.
>   c) Raise the unraised window in the last frame it was raised in, and
>      switch focus to that frame.
> Doesn't sound hard to me.  Doesn't require modifications to "select",
> or giving names and numbers to frames.

Absolutely right. Then again, you don't need to provide names and
numbers for windows, either. Doing so just makes using them a lot
simpler. Just like it's *much* faster to say "select 5" than issue the
"next" command four times, it's *much* faster to say "selectframe 5"
than issue the "focus" command four times.

> To get that behavior all thats really needed is an "affine" command to
> tell the wm "when you raise the window, do it in *its* current frame",
> instead of in the current frame.  Simple to code, simple to use.

Coding a "pull" command that makes a window appear in the current
frame is even easier to code - because I've already done it - and easy
to use.

> > > All of these discussions really lead us to the point where we have to
> > > say: we need a highly customizable (programmable) WM.
> > All open source window managers are highly customizable; it's just
> > that cc is a clumsy customization tool. Is that why there's interest
> > in a LISP version?
> You hit the nail right on the head.  Help me figure out how to get
> Eclipse working, and we can move forward.

Considering that I don't have a spare box to install Linux on, I'm not
sure how much I can help.

Mike Meyer <address@hidden>                     http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Q: How do you make the gods laugh?              A: Tell them your plans.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]