On 21/11/29 01:23PM, Mateusz Okulus wrote: > On 21/11/29 06:25PM, dther wrote: > > I've been thinking about dwm's default behaviours, ,,, > > As you say you launch new programs as you need them. This means the > launched program should have highest priority because you want to use it > right now. <...> > so you want to open it, do something with it, then close it.
I see- I'd made an assumption here that I now realise doesn't apply to all users. My tendency is to launch a few "big" programs, most of which can't easily run in a terminal (a browser, a terminal running tmux and/or an image editor), and only launch new "temporary" terminals when I need to run and see the output of a command. If I need an TUI volume mixer or something, I'd launch it as a tmux window or in floating mode to avoid disturbing my layout. > I'm not quite sure what do you mean by displacing the entire stack. > <...> > This might be confusing, but only if you open the window for later use. Realised this is my personal preference- since most of my windows are long running, I find it useful for them to occupy the same visual area at all times, in case I need to look at them for reference. > You'd need to be more specific about your use cases. > <...> If my assumptions are correct, I'd reconsider if you really need that > many programs opened in one view. I'd split programs between tags and > use solutions like tmux or built-in windows. You're probably right, honestly. My windows are tagged by "purpose" (e.g. document paging, editing, etc), and rather than using them like workspaces, I use a heavily modified version of the old workspaces patch, with each "workspace" being like its own dwm instance. I'm realising now that my ad-hoc tmux implementation is hiding the fact that I'm using way too many windows at once. Thanks for the explanation. Made me rethink how I use my windows, and that I could probably do with a major rework of my dwm instance. > All that being said, it was probably just for consistency. You'd > expect new windows to go on the top of the stack, not the bottom. > Whether it'd be better for most workflows probably wasn't even > considered. This makes sense ._.
