Subject: FVWM: Click vs. Motion gripe

From: Danek Duvall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:38:59 -0400

I'd like to suggest that the way a click is distinguished from a
click-and-drag (motion) be changed for the ``official release''.

The way it's handled now is that if the ButtonPress and ButtonRelease
events occur within ClickTime milliseconds, it's considered a Click.
If it's longer, then the click ``times out'' and it becomes a Motion.
This is often not the desired behavior, especially if you're not used
to it (I've gotten complaints from people who are more used to mwm and
4Dwm).

What these people are expecting (and what I expect, whenever I
actually do use the mouse) is for the click to become a motion only
after the mouse has started to move.  That is, if I hold down the
click for fifteen seconds (having a ClickTime of 150) but don't move
the mouse at all, it should still register as a click.  Not until I
move the mouse (perhaps MotionThreshold pixels) does it become a
motion (this is already there, with a hardcoded threshold of 3
pixels).

Thus a Motion would become a Click with a timeout dependent on mouse
movement, not time (which seems funny to me).  ClickTime probably
should be reserved for the maximum amount of time between clicks of a
DoubleClick.

If anyone can explain to me the rationale behind the current use of
ClickTime, I'd appreciate it.  I was around when the discussion was
taking place, but I don't remember the arguments.

Thanks,
Danek

PS  Why does it take two keypresses to activate a menu item if the
menu was brought up by a keystroke?  I've pretty much gotten used to
it, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to me.     Danek
--
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: BENJAMIN THOMAS KETTERIDGE <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:50:04 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>
>it, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to me.     Danek
It shouldn't! (It doesn't on my Solaris version (pre-2.0-p33) - running on
various Sun Sparc and Classic machines)

btw, is patch-35 stable yet? or should I wait for p36 or v2.0 ("official")
Ben.

| URL=http://www.dcs.aber.ac.uk/~btk/ | email=[email-masked] | _|--|_   o   |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+  (\/)  +---+ |
|  Tel: (01970) 622403 [Int: 2403]    |  or: (01970) 627842  |   vv    / \  |
--
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Danek Duvall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:01:27 -0400

> various Sun Sparc and Classic machines)

I certainly wouldn't expect it to.  But it does on my Linux box (XFree
3.1.2) and does under both IRIX 4.0 and IRIX 5.3.  I'll have to try
again on a Sun.

I now wish I'd mentioned this when I first noticed it.  I can't
remember when it first started happening, though my guess would be
somewhere around p10-20 (it is a version 2 thing, I'm sure).

BTW, why are all subjects prefixed with `FVWM:'?

Danek

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:00:56 -0500

>>>>> "DD" == Danek Duvall <[email-masked]> writes:

DD> BTW, why are all subjects prefixed with `FVWM:'?

I use this on all of my mailing lists and most people like it quite a bit.
It's for the benefit of those with mail readers that don't automatically
split things into folders.  You can see at a glance which messages come
from where.  For Procmail users who would rather not see them, I use the
following rule:

:0
*^TOfvwm@.*hpc.uh.edu
* !^To.*owner-fvwm
{
	:0 h
	SUBJECT=| formail -xSubject: | sed 's/FVWM: //'

	:0 fhw
	|formail -i "Subject:" -a "Subject:$SUBJECT"

	:0
	fvwm.spool
}

 - J<

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob Weissman)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:57:58 PDT

> 	|formail -i "Subject:" -a "Subject:$SUBJECT"

You should use a local lockfile on the last sub-recipe by suffixing the
:0 with a second ':'.

BTW, the recipe I use is a little smaller and faster:

    :0
    *       ^TOfvwm
    {
	    :0Dfhw
	    *       ^Subject: (Re: )?FVWM:
		    | sed -e '/^Subject:/ s/FVWM: //'
	    :0:
		    fvwm
    }

(Of course, I'm not filtering out owner-fvwm.)

== Bob