[xmonad] Fwd: Re: Patch to XMonad.Actions.CycleRecentWS

23 Jan 2014

      Hello,

Please find a patch to XMonad.Actions.CycleRecentWS module of
xmonad-contrib.

Below is my conversation with the author of the package.

Thanks
Joe

----- Forwarded message from Michał Janeczek  -----

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:56:36 +0100
From: Michał Janeczek 
To: Joe M 
Subject: Re: Patch to XMonad.Actions.CycleRecentWS

Hi Joe,

I agree it's not a good idea to just crash on bad input :), I only wanted
to understand what's going on. I think your patch is a clear improvement in
this light.

Could you do me a big favor and submit the patch to XMonadContrib
mainstream? I actually no longer use xmonad at the moment (trying to
implement things I liked the most from my custom configuration as Gnome 3
shell plugins instead), and I don't have the full development environment
set up, so this would be probably a bit easier for you.

Thanks again for the patch.

Best regards,
Michal

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Joe M  wrote:
...
Hello Michał,
Thanks for responding.
...
Also, what versions of xmonad and xmonad-contrib do you run?
The latest darcs versions of xmonad and xmonad-contrib.
...
...
Also, could you send me your xmonad config?
Please find attached.
...
...
...
Thanks for you email. From your XMonad config, are you using the
`cycleRecentWS` function or `cycleWindowSets` with a custom
`genOptions`?
If it's the standard `cycleRecentWS`, I'm confused how can it get that
far without crashing, I'd think `head (workspaces w)` in `recentTags`
helper function would crash first. Could you add, after importing
Debug.Trace:
recentTags w = trace (show (workspaces w)) $ map tag $ tail
(workspaces
w) ++ [head (workspaces w)]
Below is the relevant portion of my xmonad config.
I get the list of workspaces. But, I filter them out in the below
nonEmptyRecentsOnCurrentScreen to loop only those workspaces that are
on the current screen. There could be hidden workspaces but they might
belong to a different screen. Please let me know if that does not make
sense.
-- I use mod-tab to start the action, and as soon as mod is
   --    released it ends the cycling that is, as long as I am
   --    holding down mod I can keep hitting tab to keep cycling
   --    back through less recent workspaces
   --    so you can hold down mod-shift (or whatever) and hit tab,
   --    tab, tab,... whoops I missed the workspace I wanted! ...
   --    type ` ... release.
   , ((m, xK_Tab), cycleWindowSets nonEmptyRecentsOnCurrentScreen
                                   [xK_space]
                                   xK_Tab
                                   xK_grave)
-- got this from
-- http://m1.archiveorange.com/
--    m/att/j8BnA/ArchiveOrange_C872rLadnB1wa3dTcZztmNk4KA8a.hs
-- Build a list of windowsets with current swapped in turn with each
-- "most recent" workspace as given by nonEmptyTags
nonEmptyRecentsOnCurrentScreen ::
   S.StackSet String l a ScreenId sd
   -> [S.StackSet String l a ScreenId sd]
nonEmptyRecentsOnCurrentScreen ws =
      -- map (S.view `flip` ws)
          -- (rotUp . Prelude.filter (\x -> isOnScreen x ws)
          --         $ nonEmptyTags ws)
      -- map (S.view `flip` ws) (rotUp $ nonEmptyTags ws)
      map (S.view `flip` ws)
          (rotUp . filterNonCurrentScreenWorkspaces $ nonEmptyTags ws)
   where currentScreen  = S.screen . S.current $ ws
         filterNonCurrentScreenWorkspaces =
            Prelude.filter (\x -> fst (unmarshall x) == currentScreen)
         -- filterNonCurrentScreenWorkspaces =
         --    Prelude.filter (\x -> isOnScreen (S.view x ws) ws)
-- Given a windowset grab a list of the workspace tags,
--    in the default order
-- current, visibles in screen order,
--    hiddens from most to least recently accessed.
nonEmptyTags ::  S.StackSet String l a s sd -> [String]
nonEmptyTags ws =
   [ wtag | S.Workspace wtag _ (Just _) <- S.workspaces ws ]
...
...
...
, and send me the debug output?
Please let me know if you still want me to send the debug output.
As my situation is different from normal, I guess you would not
be interested in using the patch. I think it might be good to use the
patch as it adds an error condition anyway. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks again for your prompt attention,
Joe
----- End forwarded message -----