🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.165840.8945@netcom.com> dcode@netcom.com (Paul Marcos) writes:
> Enough people requested it to be a pain in the butt to 
> mail to everyone individually so here's how to do it:
> 
> There are 4 line changes and 2 line additions:
> 
> Lines 1176 through 1179:
> 	change from:
> 		5 index num //_frontWithClick exec
> 		7 index 7 index 6 index
> 		12 3 roll
> 		4 index //buckyBitMask and
> 
> 	to:
> 		5 index num
> 		9 index 9 index 7 index
> 		14 3 roll
> 		6 index //buckyBitMask and
> 
> After Line 1181 (which reads 'icon 1 eq or {')
> 	insert:
> 		pop pop
> 
> After Line 1184 (which reads '}{')
> 	insert:
> 		//_frontWithClick exec
> 
> For those who care, the first 4 line changes basically 
> move the _frontWithClick call down to put it after the 
> Alternate key check.  That call takes two arguments off
> the stack (and leaves nothing) so the following index
> parameters are all incremented by 2 so they just look over
> the extra stuff that sitting at the top of the stack.  

Are you sure? Seems to me you increment by two in all cases but one.
I.e. making the line 
> 		7 index 7 index 6 index
read
> 		9 index 9 index 7 index
seems to me like incrementing 6 only by one instead of by two.

Please clear this up. I won't dare change my WindowServer before
I know what's going on here. (Then, however, I'll gladly do so :-)

Thanks anyway for the nice hack.

	Volker

--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@qb.rhein-main.de)

Looks good on the outside, but -
	intel inside

In article <1992Dec20.101130.1723@qb.rhein-main.de> vhs@rhein-main.de writes:
> making the line 
> > 		7 index 7 index 6 index
> read
> > 		9 index 9 index 7 index
> seems to me like incrementing 6 only by one instead of by two.


I noticed the same thing and changed the 6 to 8 instead of 7
It seems to work, so I assume it was just a typo.
I didnt try 7.

It works great and also try alt-double click (to get the old behavior of alt-click)
on a title bar. (bring to front but dont change key)
alt-doubleclick and drag works too.
so you get new features without losing any old ones.
it sure makes reorganizing windows alot easier.

> Please clear this up. I won't dare change my WindowServer before
> I know what's going on here.

I wouldnt worry too much, obviously save the previous windowserver package
so if theres a problem you can boot single server and revert.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted

In article <1992Dec20.101130.1723@qb.rhein-main.de>, vhs@rhein-main.de
(Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec19.165840.8945@netcom.com> dcode@netcom.com (Paul Marcos) writes:
> > Enough people requested it to be a pain in the butt to 
> > mail to everyone individually so here's how to do it:
> > 
> > There are 4 line changes and 2 line additions:
> > 
> > Lines 1176 through 1179:
> > 	change from:
> > 		5 index num //_frontWithClick exec
> > 		7 index 7 index 6 index
> > 		12 3 roll
> > 		4 index //buckyBitMask and
> > 
> > 	to:
> > 		5 index num
> > 		9 index 9 index 7 index
> > 		14 3 roll
> > 		6 index //buckyBitMask and
> > 
> > After Line 1181 (which reads 'icon 1 eq or {')
> > 	insert:
> > 		pop pop
> > 
> > After Line 1184 (which reads '}{')
> > 	insert:
> > 		//_frontWithClick exec
> > 
> > For those who care, the first 4 line changes basically 
> > move the _frontWithClick call down to put it after the 
> > Alternate key check.  That call takes two arguments off
> > the stack (and leaves nothing) so the following index
> > parameters are all incremented by 2 so they just look over
> > the extra stuff that sitting at the top of the stack.  
> 
> Are you sure? Seems to me you increment by two in all cases but one.
> I.e. making the line 
> > 		7 index 7 index 6 index
> read
> > 		9 index 9 index 7 index
> seems to me like incrementing 6 only by one instead of by two.
> 
> Please clear this up. I won't dare change my WindowServer before
> I know what's going on here. (Then, however, I'll gladly do so :-)
> 
> Thanks anyway for the nice hack.
> 
> 	Volker
> 
> --
> Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@qb.rhein-main.de)
> 
> Looks good on the outside, but -
> 	intel inside

Yes, that was a typo.  I have tried it both ways and it seems to 
make no difference.  There is probably just something sitting on the
stack that ends up not being used.  Interesting, though, why it
would work both ways.  

I think the correct way to do it is to increment all parameters by 2 
so the correct line would read
    9 index 9 index 8 index

Good luck.


..............................
Paul Marcos
Kaleida Labs, Inc.
marcos@kaleida.com