From: <eb...@dr...> - 2011-04-17 18:35:11
|
Hi, I did the rewrite of the lua functions. I tried also to make it more readable code. Also ordering of items when running table.foreach() function is not defined (although it was correct), thus I had to use for ... in ipairs(...) at several places for the code to be written the right way. I renamed the previous merge_overlapping_screens algorithm, because it may be used if we find out how to initialise layout of weird WScreens (created from the partially overlapped screens) so that it will be shaped. We need not to investigate here, because there are no users to use this. But it may be sideefect of some further development. On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:27 +0200 eb...@dr... wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:16:12 +0200 > Arnout Engelen <no...@bz...> wrote: > > I'm not sure - we'd have to make sure the C WScreen is not obscured > > by the A+B one... might be neater to merge them, though both > > behaviors are indeed strange. > > You are right, if you focus 'A+B' WScreen then 'C' WScreen is now > (partially) hidden by the 'A+B'. I'll reimplement the merging > algorithm in the evening (or in next few days). > > I need to think about reimplementation of WScreens and saving and > loading layouts. The current implementation is not good for laptops > that are attached to different screen at work, at home and to no > second screen at all when the user travelling. > > > I checked out your branch and the lua logic crashed on me. I added a > > 'test' lua script to the 'split' branch at sf.net . > > Hmm, that bug was introduced in order stabilising patch. Fixed now and > pushed to my public repository, together with a small patch to accept > any numeric indices in setup_screens (to be consistent with notion). > > > Kind regards, > > > > Arnout > > -- > Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr > PF 2011.29184056317 > -- Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr PF 2011.29273392314 |