On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:28:44PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > In this case, I've been agreeing with both sides.
> > Dominik has some very good points.
> > I don't agree about the Style code being a problem and therefore
> > shouldn
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > Considering Dominik's strong opinion, it might be a good idea
> > to hold that patch for a while.
...
> This is the only argument I see to do not apply the patch.
> So now if the patch is no
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:07:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
[snip]
> > > Of course Dan can speak for himself, but according to the mail
> > > archive he did neither vote for nor against the patch. Not that I
> > > think it matters.
> >
> > In general Dan does not vote. He gives arguments. At the e
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:47AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 19, 2003
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Should the StyleById
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> > >
>
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
>
> Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> vote
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:59:58AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 09 Jun 2003 12:08:39 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> > The old proposal is also to change the Style command to manipulate a
> > "StyleFunction" function rather than have it maintain a style list. The
> > StyleFunction would be run
On 09 Jun 2003 11:59:58 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> On 09 Jun 2003 12:08:39 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> >
> > The new proposal would require extra code to handle the deletion of
> > windows, the old proposal does not need to do this.
> >
> > The new proposal may change the behaviour of Re
On 09 Jun 2003 12:08:39 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
>
> Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> > On 08 Jun 2003 14:24:58 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
> >
> > > I've got some free time now and I was thinking of implementing the
> > > WindowStyle command that was proposed ages ago. I think this means
> > > I vote n
Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 08 Jun 2003 14:24:58 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
I've got some free time now and I was thinking of implementing the
WindowStyle command that was proposed ages ago. I think this means I
vote no (not very strongly) but I'd appreciate some help in reviewing
the proposa
On 08 Jun 2003 02:28:19 +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> Well, the original idea that removes Style command completely was:
>
> AddToFunc StyleFunction I Next (Class XTerm) WindowStyle NoButton 6
>
> and StyleFunction is applied on all new windows.
There is a typo, it should be of course Th
On 08 Jun 2003 14:24:58 +0100, Tim Phipps wrote:
>
> Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> >Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> >votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
> >unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification
>
> I've got so
Olivier Chapuis wrote:
Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification
I've got some free time now and I was thinking of implementing the
WindowSt
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:54:14AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Ple
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 07 Jun 2003 22:18:20 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > WindowStyle does make sense as a separate command.
> > When it gets processed, it gets turned into a style
> > with an ID so that if there is a restart, it can get reapplied
> > to the window.
>
On 07 Jun 2003 22:18:20 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> WindowStyle does make sense as a separate command.
> When it gets processed, it gets turned into a style
> with an ID so that if there is a restart, it can get reapplied
> to the window.
>
> In the case you give above:
>
>Next (Class XTerm)
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > There was same talk about StyleById being temporary and you chose
> > WindowSty
On 07 Jun 2003 14:17:41 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> >
> > Seems that there is no conclusion he
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
>
> Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
> votes for it (me and Mikh
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> your votes here.
>
Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two
votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one
unclear vote (Dan)
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19 May 2003 22:38:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something.
> > I never completely un
On 20 May 2003 14:55:08 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> >
> > I thought about weither individual window style entries (one per window)
> > could be stored in a separate list and never be merged (only deleted),
> > i.e they alwa
On 20 May 2003 11:06:10 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > > _hack_ we can get it, so it
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> >
> > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> > code. Yes it is a "hac
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:32:03AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Some further explanations below.
>
> > > 3. It does not introduce a data type identifying a style, just
> > > passes lists of arguments to the style functions.
> >
> > Not sure to understand. There is a new element in the wind
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:01:55AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> >
> > I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> > _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> > code. Yes it is a "hac
On 19 May 2003 22:38:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
>
> Maybe I'm missing something.
> I never completely understood all the ins and outs of the windowstyle
> proposal.
Some further explanations below.
> > 3. It does not introduce a data type identifying a style, just
> > passes lists of arguments to the style functions.
>
> Not sure to understand. There is a new element in the window_style
> structure xid (!=0 if and only if the window_style was generate
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
Maybe I'm missing something.
I never completely understood all the ins and outs of the windowstyle
proposal. Why isn't this:
Style [ id=$[w.id] ]
--
Dan Espen
Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> And, BTW, my vote is "yes", but the command name should be "WindowStyle".
> And it should work on the window context, a trivial change to the patch.
The patch does look pretty simple.
The patch lacks documentation and test cases.
--
Dan Espen
On 19 May 2003 20:47:13 +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
>
> I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
> _hack_ we can get it, so it is difficult to me to do not wrote such
> code. Yes it is a "hack" it is not the new great "WindowStyle"
> command we want (which needs more
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:24:51PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > > your votes here.
> > >
> > As I said It is just a tm
Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> > your votes here.
> >
> As I said It is just a tmp command.
If its just a temporary command, it would make sense to wa
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
> your votes here.
>
I vote "yes". But maybe the patch should be applied later.
I recall my intention: style by id is a great feature, with a simple
_hack_ we can get it
Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast
your votes here.
I vote for "no" because
1. It will even further delay delay the 2.6 release.
2. It will destabilise the code because of the delicate nature of
the style to window propagation.
3. It does not introduce a dat
38 matches
Mail list logo
