Stop me if this isn't a bug.This has been causing me some trouble...
Should windows iconified on one desktop show up in a focuslist brought up after switching to another desktop? I have the "included iconified windows" option checked, and I think they should (didn't they used to?).
After all, I can uniconify them from the iconbox or the window list menu and have them come up on the current desktop instead of the one they were iconified from.
First, I just checked the behavior of e16.5. It seems that when using "include iconified windows", iconified windows are included in the focus list only if we are on the desktop (any viewport) where the window was iconified (sticky windows are not handled properly).
In e16.6 iconified windows are included in the focus list only if we are on the same viewport as where the window was iconified (roughly), or if the window is sticky. This behavior matches the windows shown in the gnome-panel window list. (Now, think desktops *and* viewports) This behavior originates from the concept that windows are de-iconfied to the same location they had when they were iconfied. This is how I implemented things originally. Iconified windows should then appear in window lists if the window would appear on screen if de-iconfied. In -pre2 (AFAIR) I changed the de-iconify behavior back to the old E-behavior, i.e. that windows are de-iconified to the current viewport.
So, this can be seen as a conflict between two ways to de-iconify windows (to original position/to current viewport). Or taking a different view - where do iconified windows "belong"? Where they were when iconified or where they would appear if de-iconified? As things are now, it will "feel" like iconified windows "exist" at the location where they were when iconified. Try navigating around on desktops and virtual desktops. This is particularly "visible" when using gnome-panel and looking at the items in the window list. The iconboxes distort this picture by de-iconifying to the current viewport.
I don't think it is really important how things were in e16.5. The important thing is how it should be in e16.6.
I'm actually quite happy with the current implementation :-) But please do suggest a better solution.
/Kim
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
