Subject: Re[2]: GSFR: One flags structure or two?

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:53:35 -0500 (EST)

Dan Espen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Oh, this might be Bob too?

	Yeah, I think I got this dual thread started, that Paul mercifully
split.

> Anyway, there is an issue.  From add_window.c:
> 
>   tmp_win->flags |= styles.on_flags & ALL_COMMON_FLAGS;
> 
> As you can  see, there comes a  time when some  of the style flags are
> copied into the FvwmWindow structure.  It might be logical to put the
> common flags in one area, and the remaining flags in another.

	I didn't say it was going to be easy, but since every bit of code
that passes a copy of the flag word around now will need to be tweaked
to do the GSFR, I think we ought to take the time to think out whether
there is any rationale (other than trying not to break code that we're
going to break anyway) for having a bunch of flags related to a window's
status tagging along with the style flags when we call code that is only
concerned with matching styles. I don't think there is.

	Clearly, of course, the simplicity of passing flags as a calling
arg has to go, to be replaced with a pointer to a style flags structure.
Any code that really needs to be looking at both will either need extra
args (pointers to both structures), or it will need to be looking at the
FvwmWindow structure; I think that most of those places are already
looking at the FvwmWindow.

	I officially vote for two new flag structures - style flags and
status flags.

- Bob

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:24:43 -0500

> 	I officially vote for two new flag structures - style flags and

Well, if we move  the first 13 bits   out of style flags,  into status
flags, it would seem to me we are only  using 19 of the  32 bits.  I'm
forgetting why we think we are out of bits?

--
Dan Espen                                Phone: (732) 699-5570
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:10:53 -0500 (EST)

> forgetting why we think we are out of bits?

	Well, for the time being, we'd no longer be out of bits. It wouldn't
surprise me at all, though, to find that we've got a backlog of more than 13
wouldn't-this-be-a-nifty-idea-for-a-new-style suggestions lurking in the
list archives.

- Bob

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:59:32 -0500

> wouldn't-this-be-a-nifty-idea-for-a-new-style suggestions lurking in the

I have a feeling you are trying to convince me of something...

Thats 13  more style things  that can  be represented as  single bits,
that are not to be copied into the FvwmWindow struct.

I wouldn't mind going  ahead with isolating the  status bits, and then
use 8-9 more bits before we give this  another thought.  It could be a
while before the next 8 bits get used.

---

From: "Randall S. Winchester" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:51:50 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Bob Woodside wrote:

: Dan Espen <[email-masked]> wrote:
: > Well, if we move  the first 13 bits   out of style flags,  into status
: > flags, it would seem to me we are only  using 19 of the  32 bits.  I'm
: > forgetting why we think we are out of bits?
: 
: 	Well, for the time being, we'd no longer be out of bits. It wouldn't
: surprise me at all, though, to find that we've got a backlog of more than 13
: wouldn't-this-be-a-nifty-idea-for-a-new-style suggestions lurking in the
: list archives.

Don't forget the hacks that were added as an "until GSFR";

  Scr.SmartPlacementIsClever = False;
  Scr.ClickToFocusPassesClick = True;
  Scr.ClickToFocusRaises = True;
  Scr.MouseFocusClickRaises = False;
  Scr.StipledTitles = False;

Randall

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 1998 23:52:05 -0600

>>>>> "DE" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

DE> I wouldn't mind going ahead with isolating the status bits, and then
DE> use 8-9 more bits before we give this another thought.  It could be a
DE> while before the next 8 bits get used.

Note that when it comes to that there will be more code that needs to be
converted.  At least there should be a set of access methods that will
remain the same regardless of the underlying implementation so that the new
code won't need to be worked over when the change really does come.

 - J<