I think the case is this: dwm has extremely limited stacking which is less efficient (in terms of user interaction not computer performance) then i3's tree based model, which allows substacking quite easily.
If you use a tree based model, adding a tabbed mechanism is trivial, doesn't require any additional xembed work that tabbed does, and is just another function of managing windows. I'm not sure that adding a whole 'nother program in between dwm and st is suckless. If tabbing is just a form of window management, why don't we seperate all tiling modes into separate programs. I do think that managing windows is part of the window manager, as multiple st instances are each a window, it seems best to tab them with the window manager. On 17 February 2014 11:48, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:29:06 -0500 > Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is what is clearly not clear. In a group so focused on clarity >> and logic, I am amazed by the inability to give a concise answer other >> than "it's not my use case, but i'm sure there is one out there >> somewhere' > > Well, our clarity is expressed by the fact we're not trying to extract > knowledge from where we clearly can't speak from experience. > I can't speak for the people using tabbed, but I know the > Unix-philosophy well enough to value a separate tabbing-program over > reimplementing this feature in dwm. > > Thus this is in fact a pretty clear case, given tabbed is more than > sufficient for this task. > However: If you tell me a case where an integrated solution in dwm is > superior to tabbed, I'm open for this debate. > > Cheers > > FRIGN > > -- > FRIGN <d...@frign.de> >
