On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ramil Farkhshatov ra...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
it doesn't run match() on each item, that increases speed and
reduces cpu usage. But conditions to run match() must be reconsidered:
in this patch it is called once a second.
Would it make sense to call match() only when
Christophe-Marie Duquesne chm.duque...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ramil Farkhshatov ra...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
it doesn't run match() on each item, that increases speed and
reduces cpu usage. But conditions to run match() must be reconsidered:
in this patch it is called
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Ramil Farkhshatov ra...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Christophe-Marie Duquesne chm.duque...@gmail.com wrote:
If dmenu starts matching after exhausting of data then it will not
differ in behaviour from synchronous vanilla version.
Except it won't block if it does not read
Ramil Farkhshatov ra...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
The condition may be something like:
(time_since_last_match_ms threshold_ms
|| items_since_last_match threshold_nitems
|| data_exhausted)
Stupid me. We can just match added single item.
Hey,
I've pushed a patch which should work to tip. Funnily enough if you
want an elegant solution you either have to use GNU make *or* BSD
make. To make them both happy you have to list every dependency twice.
No kidding.
Thanks,
cls
Hi,
There's an old forum thread from last year that just seems to have died out
about the subject. Did those patches ever get into main dwm? If so, they
don't look anything like the one that, e.g., Gottox recommended. As for the
Gottox patch (http://s01.de/~tox/hg/dwm/rev/d3c3a8018349) this
