Re: select patch

It looks very good, thanks!
Want to update the docs?  ;-)
Disclaimer:  I haven't tested this myself.

+Jérémie, since I think he may be the only one with commit privileges.


Jeff Abrahamson
+33 6 24 40 01 57   <-- brièvement indisponible le 4 juillet
+44 7920 594 255    <-- will change 18 July

http://jeff.purple.com/
http://blog.purple.com/jeff/


On 24 June 2014 14:22, Johannes Altmanninger <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks for your help! There is a whole lot to learn for me..
> I corrected most issues you pointed out, this keeps getting better ;)
> I changed the default behavior to prefer unselected windows, the option to
> change it is still there. Most users would probably not care too much about
> this I guess.
> Now there is a function called get_compare_string_function() which is used
> in select_name(). It takes the match_type bitmask and the address of
> compare_length.
> I am not sure how I would implement a function that does not take the
> match type as argument.
> I noticed that there are 8 occurrences of str_comp(), is there a reason
> why this is not replaced by `!strncasecmp()`?
>
>
> On 06/23/2014 04:30 PM, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
> > Funny how documentation is always the trailing bit. ;-)
> > This is looking very nice.  Thanks for all your work on this!
> > A couple (easy) comments:
> > Just delete the stuff you're deleting, don't comment it out. Git
> remembers what was there before, and it just makes your diffs longer.  I
> know it's useful while you're developing.
> > I'm acutely aware that I'm the guy who called for the optional behavior
> -- but the more I think about it, the more I think the default should be
> the behavior you propose.  It is a very good idea.
> > On that subject, the name "SELECT_SIMPLE" seems prejudiced by the old
> behavior and otherwise devoid of meaning.  What do you think of
> SELECT_OK_SELECTED ?
> > When you define MAX_WINDOW_NAME_LENGTH, I think the value is arbitrary,
> just long enough to distinguish between valid and invalid strings in
> reasonable time.  Perhaps include a comment to that effect so that future
> readers don't pause to wonder on the significance of that number.
> > Personal tick:  Functions are most readable below ten or so lines.  By
> the time I can't see the whole function in my editor, I have more trouble
> understanding as I read.  In that light, and without remarking on other
> examples of such, perhaps find_window_name() could easily be broken into a
> helper function or two (with local linkage), such as a
> >
> >     compare_window_name_function window_name_matcher(size_t&
> compare_length).
> >
> > Jeff Abrahamson
> > +33 6 24 40 01 57   <-- brièvement indisponible le 4 juillet
> > +44 7920 594 255    <-- will change 18 July
> >
> > http://jeff.purple.com/
> > http://blog.purple.com/jeff/
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ratpoison-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ratpoison-devel