Subject: Re: Some windows 'ignored'

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:34:58 -0500

Tim Phipps <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There is an enhancement request for a recapture that reuses the
> FvwmWindow list.  I don't know how difficult that would be to
> implement.

     Not terribly. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. The greatest
difficulty I foresee is reaching a consensus on what states should be
preserved, how to specfy state preservation options, etc.

     For the first pass, I was only going to do the grunt work of reusing
the FvwmWindow structure, but not preserve any state information. This
should be, as they say, completely transparent; no one should observe any
different behavior, other than a decreased propensity for crashing when a
Recaptue is done from a complex function.

> If it's too difficult maybe a Capture command is called for that
> that just goes looking for uncaptured windows.

     This sounds like a handy thing to have anyway, though.

- Bob

--
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: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:12:21 +0000

> preserved, how to specfy state preservation options, etc.

The one that annoys me is Sticky (I don't like recapture resetting it). 
I think this is one to postpone until after the GSFR.  If we can split
the behaviour bits from the appearance bits we might get closer to an
easy decision - recapture preserves the behaviour flags.

>      This sounds like a handy thing to have anyway, though.

If someone writes a capture_the_blighter_dammit utility that does an
unmap/map I think a Capture command would be unnecessary.

Cheers,
Tim.