[dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-22 Thread AR Garbe
Hi there, I have been revising dmenu/dwm/libsl in terms of simplicity due to a migration to OpenBSD recently. I can't get my head around on how much the elegance and clarity of dwm/dmenu/libsl code has suffered from the introduction of freetype2 and fc usage. Back in the days I also concluded th

[dev] Re: freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-22 Thread AR Garbe
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 at 21:10, AR Garbe wrote: > I can't get my head around on how much the elegance and clarity of > dwm/dmenu/libsl code has suffered from the introduction of freetype2 > and fc usage. [..] > I barely use multihead setups and I don't give a f*ck about >

Re: [dev] Re: freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-23 Thread AR Garbe
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 04:59, Quentin Rameau wrote: > > The idea behind libsl has to be improved in code and I will work on > > this. The drw.h API is not strictly enough defined and both dwm and > > dmenu access certain aspects of drw.h that they shouldn't, which makes > > it currently impossibl

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-23 Thread AR Garbe
Hi Roberto, On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 01:59, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 09:10:37PM -0700, AR Garbe wrote: > > I'm really at a point to consider forking dwm and dmenu to simply rely > > on X11 as it used to be, perhaps with going the

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-23 Thread AR Garbe
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 06:37, wrote: > st has a clean wayland fork? BTW, suckless wayland compositor, still too early > to talk about it? I think a suckless wayland compositor - if it is something to be worked on, should become a separate project. Best regards, Anselm

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-23 Thread AR Garbe
On 23 September 2018 at 11:56, Eric Pruitt wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 09:14:11AM -0700, AR Garbe wrote: >> I totally agree. I'd be in favour in a st just using plain X fonts. >> This emoji unicode porn and anti-aliasing TTF support doesn't make >> sense to me

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-24 Thread AR Garbe
Hi there, On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 06:42, Cág wrote: > Anselm wrote: > > Back in the days I also concluded that the introduction of Xinerama > > and multihead support was a bad idea after all. > > > > What do you guys think about this idea? > > A couple of ideas: > 1. Having Xft and Xinerama suppor

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-25 Thread AR Garbe
Hi Silvain, On 25 September 2018 at 14:25, wrote: > The suckless futur proof solution: it is over, st goes 7bits ascii only with > it's own bitmap fonts... non english-only terminal users will just trash it. Sounds like a better plan for longevity. > ... or a suckless futur proof unicode/font

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-25 Thread AR Garbe
Hi Laslo, On 25 September 2018 at 16:06, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:25:12 + > sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote: >struct sfl { ... }; > >sfl_init(struct sfl *s, char **files, size_t nfiles); >sfl_draw(...); >sfl_free(struct sfl *s); This is something I was c

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-09-25 Thread AR Garbe
On 25 September 2018 at 16:32, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:28:22 -0700 > AR Garbe wrote: >> This is something I was considering, however it looks like the water >> of the babie's bathtub is poisoned with freetype2/fc bacteria. I don't >> wanna

Re: [dev] [dwm] Emacs ediff popup window does not get focus

2018-10-08 Thread AR Garbe
Hi Sean, try forcing that window as floating window via: { "Ediff", NULL, NULL, 0,1, -1 }, or { "Emacs", "Ediff", NULL, 0,1, -1 }, in the rules[] section of config.h BR, Anselm

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-10-19 Thread AR Garbe
Hi David, On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 05:47, David Demelier wrote: > Le 24/09/2018 à 08:19, AR Garbe a écrit : > > On 23 September 2018 at 11:56, Eric Pruitt wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 09:14:11AM -0700, AR Garbe wrote: > >>> I totally agree. I'd be in favo

Re: [dev] freetype2/fc pain

2018-10-19 Thread AR Garbe
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 07:04, David Demelier wrote: > Le 23/09/2018 à 06:10, AR Garbe a écrit : > > Back in the days I also concluded that the introduction of Xinerama > > and multihead support was a bad idea after all. > > > > I'm really at a point to consider