🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JWZ.92Oct7230636@thalidomide.lucid.com>, Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com> writes:
> Well, I was mostly joking (mostly.)  If it's harder to handle events in Epoch
> than in GWM, then that just means that GWM has a better design for event
> handling, right?  They're both lisps.

The key advantage of GWM in this regard is that it doesn't do anything
else. Its entire structure can be designed around WM functions, as
opposed to having to worry about (say) handling text editing.

This also doesn't solve the problem of applications other than
Emacs/Epoch that want to have a better interaction with the WM (yes,
some of us do run other applications :-)).

For the person who commented on V19 doing this better, yes, that's
true. V19 has a significantly more general input model from previous
versions. It is sufficiently general that X events can be added to it,
unlike the input handling in V18 (on which Epoch is based).

> I'm just talking about a customizable, extensible window manager.  (I think
> that the way that one can offload the work of popping up menus, etc to the
> window manager is a bad idea, but that's a different matter.)

A difference of opinion. I happen to think that offloading menus to
the WM is a wonderful idea. It means that an application can "fit"
into a user's environment far more easily. If you run OpenWindows and
I run Motif, the same application could pop up its menus in different
(locally appropriate) styles transparently by asking the WM to do it.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan