[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RP] My dreams about ratpoison
From: |
Davi de Castro Reis |
Subject: |
Re: [RP] My dreams about ratpoison |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:00:15 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050127) |
I've also talked about the idea of groups of groups (somewhere...).
But I think the feature that would better serve your needs would to
have "labels" instead of groups. Gmail does this, with labels instead
of folders for message. In gmail, each message can have several
labels, sort of like having a copy in several different. In RP the
idea would be for each window to be available several groups at once
(with a different geometry, if necessary, in each).
I get it. But I probably like the tree with shared nodes model better.
With labels, you are just saying "this windows belongs to this, this and
this groups". You do not reflect that it belongs to a hierarchy, with
some layout attached. But whatever we call it, it is cool stuff.
I think you can use groups quite conveniently to do anything you can
do with workspaces? Anyway, it is a fact that one can easily move
windows between groups, with :gmove.
Hum, as I see it, workspaces are just a convenience built above groups.
I tried gmove. It has a strange behavior. If am in workspace (group) 1
and I try to send the current window to workspace 2 (currently empty), I do:
gmove 2
Strangely, I am not "teleported" with the window. I am still seeing the
window, and if I do Ct+w, I get the list of windows in workspace 1
(where I am), without the window I am seeing in front of my eyes :-).
If I go to workspace 2, I get the black screen. But the window I moved
is there! I just need to do Ct+0. I think this is confuse. The better
would be to select the target group after a move, and select the moved
window inside the group. On the other side, people might want to move
several windows from the current workgroup, and this would get into
their way (but keeping the moved window highlighted while staying in the
old group does not seems to be usefull at all).
Anyway, I was checking rpws source and I think my tree with shared
vertices idea might be implementable using scripts. Having groups of
groups would be a huge help, but I can probably simulate it with some
bookkeeping.
Thanks for the feedback.
Long live to ratpoison (and death to the rodent).
[]s
Davi de Castro Reis