At 1250273039 time_t, Uli Schlachter wrote: > diff --git a/wibox.c b/wibox.c > index 7220f6e..6ef1715 100644 > --- a/wibox.c > +++ b/wibox.c > @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ static void > wibox_need_update(wibox_t *wibox) > { > wibox->need_update = true; > + /* All out callers change the position of some widgets which means we > should > + * generate a new mouse_enter event. > + */
Yeah. > wibox->mouse_over = NULL; > } > > @@ -791,8 +794,10 @@ luaA_wibox_invalidate_byitem(lua_State *L, const void > *item) > wibox_t *wibox = *w; > if(luaA_wibox_hasitem(L, wibox, item)) > { > - /* update wibox */ > - wibox_need_update(wibox); > + /* update wibox. Don't use wibox_need_update() here because for > this > + * specific case we don't want to touch wibox->mouse_over! > + */ > + wibox->need_update = true; > lua_pop(L, 1); /* remove widgets table */ > } But AFAIU we want: the change of a widget in the table may say that we are removing/adding a widget, so we need to redraw and that position may change. So I think your patch works in this specific case but has drawbacks in a more general way. :) -- Julien Danjou // ᐰ <jul...@danjou.info> http://julien.danjou.info // 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD // I'm no superman.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature