[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RP] My dreams about ratpoison

From: Davi de Castro Reis
Subject: Re: [RP] My dreams about ratpoison
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:00:15 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050127)

I've also talked about the idea of groups of groups (somewhere...).
But I think the feature that would better serve your needs would to
have "labels" instead of groups. Gmail does this, with labels instead
of folders for message.  In gmail, each message can have several
labels, sort of like having a copy in several different.  In RP the
idea would be for each window to be available several groups at once
(with a different geometry, if necessary, in each).

I get it. But I probably like the tree with shared nodes model better.
With labels, you are just saying "this windows belongs to this, this and
this groups". You do not reflect that it belongs to a hierarchy, with
some layout attached. But whatever we call it, it is cool stuff.

I think you can use groups quite conveniently to do anything you can
do with workspaces?  Anyway, it is a fact that one can easily move
windows between groups, with :gmove.

Hum, as I see it, workspaces are just a convenience built above groups.

I tried gmove. It has a strange behavior. If am in workspace (group) 1 and I try to send the current window to workspace 2 (currently empty), I do:

gmove 2

Strangely, I am not "teleported" with the window. I am still seeing the window, and if I do Ct+w, I get the list of windows in workspace 1 (where I am), without the window I am seeing in front of my eyes :-). If I go to workspace 2, I get the black screen. But the window I moved is there! I just need to do Ct+0. I think this is confuse. The better would be to select the target group after a move, and select the moved window inside the group. On the other side, people might want to move several windows from the current workgroup, and this would get into their way (but keeping the moved window highlighted while staying in the old group does not seems to be usefull at all).

Anyway, I was checking rpws source and I think my tree with shared vertices idea might be implementable using scripts. Having groups of groups would be a huge help, but I can probably simulate it with some bookkeeping.

Thanks for the feedback.
Long live to ratpoison (and death to the rodent).

Davi de Castro Reis

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]