Subject: merge_styles(),handle_new_window_style

From: Marcus Lundblad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:35:06 +0100 (CET)

There is a comment in style.c that says that you have to add code for new
styles in merge_styles() and handle_new_window_style().
In merge_styles I see only code for a few styles and a general merge
routine. Is "on-off-styles" handled automatically?
And how about new windows? It is my impression that the flag fields are
zeroed on creation. If this is so I don't need to do any any special code
here for my new styles. And as far as I can see it works.

//Marcus 

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:28:37 +0000

> here for my new styles. And as far as I can see it works.

The initial style value for bit options is zero by default. To define non
zero default add a corresponding "Style *" in ConfigFvwmDefaults.

Boolean style options are merged automatically if you set corresponding
style masks using macros, so you only need to define macros and call them
when Style command is issued.

I hope you don't name your style options UnIconifiable, since you have
!Iconifiable automatically, this would be the only syntax for boolean
options.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Marcus Lundblad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:39:07 +0100 (CET)

> !Iconifiable automatically, this would be the only syntax for boolean

I added styles with and without "Un" for all three (opposites).
Shall all "opposite-names" be removed? And only the !-variant work in the
future? I added the Un variants to be consistent with the existing
options. I guess removing redundant styles will not be done before 2.6

And yes, I defined macros to set the bit masks. So for Iconifiable for
example the bitfield is named is_uniconifiable (since the default value,
0, means not uniconifiable ie. the default value).

//Marcus

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:32:23 +0100

> > > here for my new styles. And as far as I can see it works.

You may need to write some code in style.c, function
check_window_style_change() and in update.c update.c to take care of
dynamic changes of the style.  The rule is that all styles can be
changed without a recapture.

> future?

Yes, but from the names I guess that Iconifyable and UnIconifyable
are complementary, but not opposite of each other, right?

> I added the Un variants to be consistent with the existing

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^