HI Scott
thanks for the fast answer :-)
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:42 +1000
scott <ss_at_aao.gov.au> wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> : the current tabsize is always resized to a minimum
> : of the possible titlewidth while the others are maximazed. It
> : would be much better if every tab has equal width !
>
> At the moment the tab-button for the visible tab is resized to
> allow the title text to be fully visible & the remaining space is
> shared equally between the remaining tab-buttons for the non-visible
> windows.
>
> Earlier versions of FvwmTabs used to share space equally among
> ALL the tab-buttons (I think this is what you are asking for?)
yes.
> which works fine if you only have a few tabs & the title text is
> not very long. However if you use many tabs &/or long title text
> (much more common) this quickly becomes a problem as you can't
> see all the title text for the visible tab.
Yes and i think thats the problem with me. I dont have any meaningfull
long names in the Title right now (only "bash") and according to
your procedure has the currently used tab the smallest width !
Using TabNext and TabPrev is then very confusing !!
eg.
Fvwm| BASH | bash | bash | bash |
^ currently used
TabNext:
Fvwm| bash | BASH | bash | bash |
TabNext:
Fvwm| bash | bash | BASH | bash |
Just try it with some very short Titles.
--------------
I also tried the current behavior with longer titles and think
its running fine as long as the titles have nearly equal length. But
if some tab is very small, its again very confusing
(i have tried a very long name (>50 letters)).
----------------
In generell i am not interested in what title the xterm has.
Instead i am only interested in what Xterm from the left i am in.
eg. .include file is in "leftmost(first)" Tab.
.c file in second leftmost tab
make(shell) in third
<.. next files..>
And if i have many tabs in one manager i can also look at the
"status line"(directly below the Tabs) and see the corresponding
long title.
>
> Hence the current arrangement which deliberately tries to solve
> this problem.
>
> I don't see any advantages in using the earlier arrangement - you
> don't really *gain* anything. Aesthetics perhaps? Am I misunderstanding
> something?
The currently tab-width procedure is confusing when used with short
titles. (see above.)
[ Perhaps its only confusing for me. But try it yourself. ]
>
> : It is
> : then possible to easyly see which tab is currently used and
> : therefore the tabs can be switched faster.
>
> Color & tab-button relief are the best ways to see which tab is visible.
>
> Anyway, consider what's described above & tell me if you *really*
> need this feature. If you do I can add it in as an option.
It would be fine for me, if all the tabs do have equal length
(like fluxbox).
I would be very gratefull for that feature. :-)
As far as you know i tried to patch on my one, but my perl knowledge is
limited.
> What do other FvwmTabs users think about this issue? agree? disagree?
:-)
Thanks in advance, Scott
Greets
Tobias
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Sat Oct 18 2003 - 10:43:20 BST