Mathieu OTHACEHE <m.othac...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi,
Ehlo, >> I think this is headed in the wrong direction. There is no reason to >> disable this command when we can easily deal with the single available >> screen. > > Yes I agree, it is not a very good idea after all. > > Maybe we could copy the old behaviour by mapping the Xrandr identifier > to an integer going from 0 to screen count. > > For example, > > Xrandr id -> Ratpoison id > 0x47 0 > 0x48 1 > 0x49 2 > > Then we would use this ratpoison id to identify screens in sdump, > sselect and sfrestore commands. No idea whether how stable would be the mapping between Xrandr ids and ratpoison ids, though, as we don't control the former. There's not much choice though, but 1. you already have implemented a screen_sort function, and 2. this sounds better than forcing the user to deal with numbers like 42 and 66, especially for 'sselect'. :) -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ratpoison-devel mailing list Ratpoison-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ratpoison-devel
