On 9 February 2014 01:07, Chris Down <ch...@chrisdown.name> wrote: > On 2014-02-08 18:37:19 -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote: >> I have had a love affair with dwm's config.h. Unfortunately I also >> love i3, and also deal with a plethora of other desktops on my day to >> day work. so I created hotkey (1). >> >> Why wasn't there a simple way to have hotkeys, dealt with properly, in >> a suckless manner? I don't want inane bindings for every WM, I don't >> even want my wm controlling my hotkeys! So I wrote it. > > A few comments: > > - What's with the weird inconsistent indentation? It makes your code > really hard to read;
Not sure where you are reading it. My indentation is perfectly normal, tabs mark a single level of indentation. Maybe you have a weird editor setup or something with 16 spaces per tab? > - You are using system(), which is highly unportable and extremely > fragile; I'm not so sure. What's a better solution? system() seems like a very standard function. Portability is also not a real concern for me. mos everybody uses linux who uses X11, if you are using something else, well, then it's probably simple to write a patch. If there's a better solution I am all for it though > - There is no author attribution for the code taken from dwm, which is > required; > - You also failed to include the license header, which is required by > the MIT license; I h8 licensing schemes which make me read the text... somebody call their lawyer and sue, looks like mit is not 4 me. > - You are using the unportable "return 0" when returning from main() -- > use EXIT_SUCCESS instead. good catch. I usually do, though when would it ever reach that point? while(1) loops until the process exists, so maybe removin the line would be even better. > I did not look in detail at the code, there may be more issues. please do, I am unfamilar with x11's api so i probably botched it quite a bit.
