Re: [dev] Possible ideas for suckless project

2021-07-02 Thread Nikita Zlobin
In Thu, 1 Jul 2021 23:17:33 +0200 Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 11:54:27PM +0500, Nikita Zlobin wrote: . > > > 2. Gfxterm (graphics output server). > > > > What's great in TUI apps - probably, that they don't do graphical > > drawing in their own. They just send & receive

Re: [dev] tabbed: Use PWD xprop to set workdir for spawned clients. Any clear cons?

2021-07-02 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 01:16:41AM +0500, Nikita Zlobin wrote: > I use tabbed for multitab terminal emulator. But I lacked one feature, > presenting in at least some vte-based terminals: when new tab is > opened, it inherits workdir from previous active tab. > > I tried to find, it same could be i

Re: [dev] tabbed: Use PWD xprop to set workdir for spawned clients. Any clear cons?

2021-07-02 Thread Mateusz Okulus
As far as I know the process it to submit patches to hack...@suckless.org, where you can get some feedback and make improvements. On such a simple patch there is just not much to say. Then here https://suckless.org/wiki/ are instruction how to add a patch to the wiki. I'm sure it'll be accepted. I

Re: [dev] tabbed: Use PWD xprop to set workdir for spawned clients. Any clear cons?

2021-07-02 Thread Nikita Zlobin
В Fri, 2 Jul 2021 17:53:27 +0200 Hiltjo Posthuma пишет: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 01:16:41AM +0500, Nikita Zlobin wrote: > > I use tabbed for multitab terminal emulator. But I lacked one > > feature, presenting in at least some vte-based terminals: when new > > tab is opened, it inherits workdir

Re: [dev] tabbed: Use PWD xprop to set workdir for spawned clients. Any clear cons?

2021-07-02 Thread Nikita Zlobin
In Fri, 2 Jul 2021 20:14:58 +0200 Mateusz Okulus wrote: > As far as I know the process it to submit patches to > hack...@suckless.org, where you can get some feedback and make > improvements. On such a simple patch there is just not much to say. > Then here https://suckless.org/wiki/ are instruct

Re: [dev] Why not use the -exec feature of find?

2021-07-02 Thread Cág
Greg Minshall wrote: >> Slightly off-topic and moderately unpopular: find(1) doesn't quite well >> fit into the Unix userland. It starts with the syntax: multiletter >> options (POSIX calls them operands though), the $program $option(s) >> $file(s) order (compare the find's "do where what" vs natu

Re: [dev] Why not use the -exec feature of find?

2021-07-02 Thread Greg Minshall
caóc, > Yes, sir, and I think it was GNU who came up with this (see getopt(3) of > glibc). Guideline 10 of the Utility Conventions[0] states that "--" > marks the end of options. > > [0]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html yeah, i think gnu came up with, or

Re: [dev] Why not use the -exec feature of find?

2021-07-02 Thread Nikita Zlobin
In Sat, 03 Jul 2021 06:52:54 +0300 Greg Minshall wrote: Replying to topic start, which is not in my local ingoing dir. There's only one advantage for find... -exec method: compatibility and lower processes number. It runs command for each single argument. Two reasons for xargs to be more effect