On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 07:53:07AM +0100, Jamie Webb wrote:
I wonder: would it be feasible to sandbox layouts (and other 'user' code) somewhat, so that a bug like this would perhaps just cause Xmonad to switch to Full rather than blowing away the session? It would make experimenting a bit less troublesome.
That would be really nice, even though I don't know if there are nice ways to do it. Moreover I think there's a consensus that QC should be the way to go (especially with the new pureLayout and pureMessage). Take also into account that so far we didn't feel it necessary. My code is the only one that has been proved to be prone to such stupid, and still crash producing, bugs. As in this example, where I have an OR in a conditional and then, in the body of the function, I just take into account only the first possibility, the problem is that I didn't yet develop that sensibility to not to even write such stupid errors. Something the other contributors already have. Luckily I'm quite fast in providing a fixes so, after a few weeks of debugging, even my code stabilizes. For testing purposes I extensively use Xnest, and a simple hack in my .xprofile so that, when an instance of xmonad crashes, another one takes over: while [ 1 ]; do /usr/local/bin/xmonad /usr/local/bin/xmonad.bak done Andrea