On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:12:28 +1000, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:55:22 +0200 Tilman Sauerbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > babbled: > > > guess I really screwed up that _prop_layer_set() function as it didn't > > honour other atoms that might have been set by the WM. > > > > AFAIK, I did it right now. The attached patch includes all of the > > changes I made during the last three days, so you can forgot about those > > other patches ;p > > > > This new patch also adds _window_prop_sticky_set(), which sets/unsets > > the sticky state of a window. > > > > Please comment ;) > > i'm not sure about ecore_x_window_prop_delete_request_set() being > deleted and replaced by ecore_x_window_prop_protocol_set() calls. > though i can see where you're getting at. not sure there. what's > your reasoning here?
The "delete request" is _one_ atom out of the group of "protocol" atoms. IMHO it makes sense to specify the atom to set in a function parameter instead of writing a function for each "protocol" atom: ecore_x_window_prop_delete_request_set(), ecore_x_window_prop_take_focus_set(), etc. At the moment, there are just two atoms in the enumeration, but IIRC, there are some more which might be implemented in ecore_x in the future as well. Using a single function keeps the code clean, duplicating code sucks ;) If you guys don't like this approach, I can change it back, though I don't see the disadvantage in doing it the way I did :) Regards, Tilman ------------------------------------------------------- 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
