On 3 September 2010 10:28, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 3, 2010, Uriel <ur...@berlinblue.org> wrote: >> I understand that when you are busy reinventing square wheels, causing >> extra confusion is the least of your worries... > > Clearly you didn't read the explanation of what libdraw is... Allow me > to reiterate: the functions already existed within dwm, dmenu, and > tabbed. They are now a part of a separate library, simply for ease of > development. In its present state it does not even handle the creation > of windows, let alone any of the various other things Plan 9's does. > > As noted by Szabolcs, it uses Xlib functions directly and so is > several orders of magnitude smaller than Plan 9's. Seriously. Since > you haven't even looked at it yet, I urge you to check the vast > difference in code complexity. It may just be me, but weren't we > trying to write simple software, not just use libraries that already > exist because OMG they're in Plan 9! > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think one cannot use Plan > 9's libdraw (constrained as it is by rio's limited windowing > capabilities) to create redirect-overridden windows like those > required by dwm and dmenu. Not, at least, without some dirty hacks. If > this is the case then how, exactly, are we meant to use that library?
Plan 9's libdraw is very different to the libdraw we are discussing. libdraw of dmenu/dwm is intended to be used for different backends, not just xlib, hence having libxdraw would be misleading. If we think about a better name, what about libdc? There is one already, what a surprise, but porbably the conflict here would be less intense. Since all functions are dc_ prefixed, libdc makes sense. Cheers, Anselm
