On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 16:27, lolilolicon <loliloli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But now I realize another problem with moving mfact/nmaster to Layout.
>> The issue is two monitors should be able to use different mfact/nmaster
>> values for the same layout; also, the setmfact/incnmaster functions
>> will not update the unselected monitor, but will have their effects all
>> of a sudden next time that monitor is arranged.
>> This makes me want to make nmaster/mfact specific to the monitor *and*
>> the layout. And I also prefer achieving this in the least intrusive
>> way possible.
>
> Exactly this is the main problem. You could work around it with
> changing monitor as follows:
>
> struct Monitor {
> char ltsymbol[16];
> - float mfact;
> - int nmaster;
> + float mfact[LENGTH(layouts)];
> + int nmaster[LENGTH(layouts)];
> int num;
> int by; /* bar geometry */
> int mx, my, mw, mh; /* screen size */
>
> however this would require some reshuffling of the config.h inclusion
> and also changes in various places. So I doubt it would be necessary
> at all. Just stick with nmaster/mfact in Monitor.
>
Hmm, I think the difficulty is to track the index of the current layout
in the layouts array. I'm not sure how. I'd like to stick with the
current Monitor struct.
>> You are absolutely right. Now that I think of it, we can temporarily
>> set m->mfact and/or m->nmaster in a layout function before calling
>> apply_mslts, and restore the values afterwards. For example, define
>> the col layout like this:
>>
>> /* int term_width is the width of a terminal (e.g. 80 characters) */
>> void
>> col(Monitor *m) {
>> float mfact = m->mfact;
>> int nmaster = m->nmaster;
>> /* masters will be term_width wide */
>> m->nmaster = MIN(nmaster, m->ww / term_width);
>> m->mfact = (float)term_width * m->nmaster / m->ww;
>> apply_mslts(m, False, lt_hstack, lt_vstack);
>> m->mfact = mfact;
>> m->nmaster = nmaster;
>> }
>>
>> A bit back-and-forth with the mfact calculation (since we will calculate
>> back to the width in apply_mslts), but it's a fair compromise, I guess.
>
> This could work for a patch, but I don't think this is a great way of
> programming for mainline, since manipulating and restoring
> nmaster/mfact for the time being is quite ugly. ;)
Well, it's a compromise. Would you feel it's less ugly if I define the
apply_mslts function like this:
tatic void apply_mslts(Monitor *m, Bool hsplit,
float mfact, int nmaster,
void (*mltf)(Client **, Booth *, unsigned int),
void (*sltf)(Client **, Booth *, unsigned int)) {
/* uses mfact instead of m->mfact, nmaster intead of m->nmaster */
}
and define the layouts like:
void
col(Monitor *m) {
int nmaster = MIN(m->nmaster, m->ww / term_width);
float mfact = (float)term_width * nmaster / m->ww;
apply_mslts(m, False, mfact, nmaster, lt_hstack, lt_vstack);
}
void
tile(Monitor *m) {
apply_mslts(m, False, m->mfact, m->nmaster, lt_vstack, lt_vstack);
}
Basically the same thing, I guess it's still ugly, but does it feel less
ugly? :D
>
> Cheers,
> Anselm
>
>
