On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:59:54AM -0500, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Andrea Rossato < mailing_list@istitutocolli.org> wrote:
Yes you did. You actually did miss quite a lot of the stuff I've been sending recently. You are not the only one, though.
Hey, there's no need for that. You have been sending rather a lot of stuff lately, you know, you can't blame people for not quite being able to keep up. =)
I did not intend to blame anyone for that, and if I gave that impression I really beg your pardon. I'm really tired and maybe I'm loosing the ability to calibrate my words, but I just wanted to say that, yes, I had sent a proposal for a xinerama safe implementation of PerWorkspace (not the details but the general ideas... the code is straight).
Andrea, I would like to point out that having methods like doLayoutInWorkspace and so on have nothing to do with the viability of your LayoutCombinator class. These methods have only to do with implementing PerWorkspace in particular. In fact, I rather liked your LayoutCombinator class and would like a chance to try implementing PerWorkspace using it together with sjanssen's approach of special messages sent by a startup hook. I would like to ask if you can just re-push your LayoutCombinator class and CombinedLayout combinator, without making any changes to PerWorkspace? That way it will not break anything and we can play around with implementing things in terms of it.
I didn't revert as a retaliation measure...;) It's a couple of days that I keep repeating that a LayoutCombinator class is broken due to the type signature of description, and I do not think is right to push in a public repository of an important collaborative project like ours code that I know is broken. Since I see this problem very clearly, I thought it should be evident to others too. It is not. So I decided to revert, and discuss we you, guys, about the issue: http://code.google.com/p/xmonad/issues/detail?id=129 When we reach an agreement on how to write that class correctly, we will push back. I was a bit harsh, I must confess that, because when I said that type signature was wrong I got answers as if I were a newbie who doesn't get the beauty of pureness. I was just talking about the beauty of pureness at a higher level of abstraction, in xmonad class system...;)
Again, you seem to be confusing the issue of the type of 'description' with the problem of getting PerWorkspace to work with xinerama. The above code still would not work with xinerama, which is my main goal. It also still does not work with messages that may be sent to a non-focused workspace.
No I do not. 1. xinerama issue -> doLayoutInWorkspace, emptyLayoutInWorkspace, handleMessageInWorkspace 2. LayoutCombinator class -> description type If I solve 2 and I get 1 the PerWorkspace implementation is 3 lines long. If I get 1 but I don't get 2 the implementation of PerWorkspace is longer but can be done. But in this case the LayoutCombinator class is bugged: either you confine it to pure combinators only (Choose, NewSelect and ToggleLayouts could be implemented, if I remember right), but PerWorkspace cannot be implememented.
No, it wasn't; there is still the issue of messages sent to non-focused workspaces, which probably wouldn't cause any problems most of the time (so it appeared to work) but could cause subtle bugs. I sent an explanation of this to the list earlier.
I hope what I said above clarifies my point. but you are right, in some of my messages I did some confusion on the two points (but believe me, the problem is quite clear to me). Hope this helps. Andrea