[xmonad] The future of PerWorkspace
sjanssen at cse.unl.edu
Fri Feb 1 01:22:32 EST 2008
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:21:30PM +0100, Andrea Rossato wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:42:32PM -0600, Spencer Janssen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:29:58PM -0500, Brent Yorgey wrote:
> > > 1. PerWorkspace is an inelegant hack with several icky problems:
> > Agreed. It is approaching the limits of xmonad's layout design.
(here, I'm specifically speaking to the issue of PerWorkspace and multi-head)
> actually I don't think this is true. I believe that the LayoutClass
> can be far more expressive that it is now just by adding a couple of
> trivial methods. I've sent a patch two messages ago. That kind of
> approach seems to me to be cleaner that yours (which, as far as I get
> it requires messages going around to know where you are).
As far as I know, there has only been one other proposal that solves the
Xinerama issues with PerWorkspace -- adding a WorkspaceId argument to doLayout.
I think we've all agreed that isn't so nice. My message proposal is actually
very similar -- except that only layouts that care about workspace location
need to handle these messages, whereas an extra argument to doLayout must be
mentioned in every single layout instance.
Have you proposed another implementation that solves the Xinerama issue, and I
More information about the xmonad