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
