[hlwm] split feature-request

[Kinley Dorji]

Thank you Thorsten and Florian. I'm off to further refine my hlwm scripts!
On Dec 13, 2013 4:09 AM, "Thorsten Wißmann" <re06huxa at cip.cs.fau.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:47:37PM +0100, Florian Bruhin wrote:
> > * Thorsten Wißmann <edu at thorsten-wissmann.de> [2013-12-12 18:03:20
> +0100]:
> > > It seems quite often, that immediately after splitting, the fresh frame
> > > is focused by the user. So it might be an option to focus the fresh
> > > frame automatically after the split. Opinions?
> >
> > As already said in IRC: As an option, +1, and I think it should also
> > default to true.
>
> I mean we can just change the default keybinding in the autostart. And
> by now I got positive feedback only, so we even could change the default
> and provide backwards-compatible modes: down_stay_focus and
> right_stay_focus.
>
> The only application of the old focus model is when splitting a frame
> and moving a client from the current frame to it. But this could be
> solved by some command(or split mode) »create the binary tree from the
> current frame appearance«.
>
> > > And maybe top/bottom should be renamed to up/down...
> >
> > Random thought that comes to mind: What about more fuzzy parsers in
> > general?
> >
> > Like, for each of these actions it would parse these words:
> >
> > left:  left
> > right: right, vertical
> > up:    top, up
> > down:  bottom, down, horizontal
>
> That's the current implementation.
>
> > true:  true, yes, on, 1
> > false: false, no, off, 0
>
> Except for 1 and 0, it's already reality!
>
> https://git.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/?p=hlwm;a=blob;f=src/utils.c#l205
>
> But fuzzy parsing in general isn't that nice. It surely will cause
> trouble later because we have to (or should) keep the 'fuzzy parsing'
> backwards compatible.
>
> Regards,
> Thorsten
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/hlwm/attachments/20131213/aa290930/attachment.htm>