On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:40:14PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote: > Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > > I'm willing to apply your unification patches to dmenu and dwm, but can you > > make a patch for dwm/dmenu if it breaks it? > > Heyho Hiltjo, > > sorry, I don't quite get what you are referring to. If a regression with my > patch series turns up, of course I will fix it assuming that is what you > meant. >
Nevermind, I did not see your dwm, dmenu and sent patches, very nice work! I'll test those later :) > > > -typedef struct { > > > - Clr *fg; > > > - Clr *bg; > > > - Clr *border; > > > -} ClrScheme; > > > +enum { ColFg, ColBg, ColCount }; /* Scm index */ > > > +typedef XftColor *Scm; > > > > I don't like the typedef to a pointer here. > > I wanted to clean up the unneeded nesting, but also keep the type naming > scheme > (upper case letter - two lower case letters) consistent instead of just using > `XftColor *` in the interface. I am unsure about what the level of abstraction > should be in this non-library interface to the drw compilation unit. Could you > provide more insight in the reasoning behind your preference? I meant using: typedef XftColor Scm and *Scm. instead of typedef XftColor *Scm not sure tbh, maybe it's fine as it is now. -- Kind regards, Hiltjo