Chris,
This is how I'm doing it with the current code base of FVWM (great WM).
10:25 vanzant:> fvwm2 -version
[FVWM][main]: Fvwm Version 2.0.46 compiled on Nov 3 1997 at 14:37:44
# First bind Meta-Ctrl-m to Move
Key m A CM Move
Now, pressing the arrow keys will move the window 10 pixels (I think) and
pressing Meta-Ctrl-Arrow will move it in one pixel at a time.
I hope this is what you are looking for,
Yehuda.
>Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 02:06:09 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Chris P. Ross" <cross_at_va.pubnix.com>
>To: fvwm_at_hpc.uh.edu
>Subject: FVWM: Feature enhancement discussion...
>
>
> Hi. I know this basically falls under the FAQ of "I would like
>really cool feature 'X'", but in this case it is a fairly small
>extention of existing capabilities, and it's very useful to me in at
>least one case. I assume it might be useful enough to others to
>justify the cost of adding it (which shouldn't be great, I don't
>think). I wanted to discuss with people more familiar with the design
>and current workings of fvwm the idea, tho, and see what everyone
>thinks...
>
> The behaviour I want is the behaviour I put into tvtwm into a
>function called "RelativeMove". You give it a geometry spec, and it
>will operate on the current window. (Or you could select one, if you
>invoked it somewhere where that would be necessary). But anyway, I
>bind it to a set of keys, so that "Shift-Left", for example, in a
>window context will move that window by the specified amount. (I
>defined Shift-Left to be +1+0, but it could be anything) Obviously, I
>also defined the rest of the arrow keys, at a variety of distances per
>move with various modifiers.
>
> I find this very useful for doing precise positioning of a window,
>and for the times that do seem to exist where I want to move a window
>a few (20-40) pixels out of the way, but don't want to have to go all
>the way to the mouse, then find a titlebar/frame/etc, then move it;
>all just for 20 pixels so I can read something in another window for a
>moment.
>
> Having explained what I want and why, now I wanted to mention what I
>think might be an acceptable, and "least-intrusive" method to do the
>same in fvwm (2.0.42 is where I am now). I think if the behaviour of
>GetTwoArguments (in misc.c) was extended to handle a 'r' (or 'R')
>qualifier, in addition to the already special 'p' qualifier, that it
>would indicate to the caller somehow that it was to be relative. This
>seems gentler than making a new function to do a RelativeMove, and
>there are other cases (RelativeResize) where one might want something
>similar.
>
> To get this information back to GetTwoArgument's caller, we'd either
>have to pass in more arguments, or change the way the val1_unit
>argument is dealt with. Not just use it as a divisor all the time,
>like it is now. This is the short-term solution I took to make it
>work for Move for me right now. But, I didn't modify the behaviour of
>the other things that call GetTwoArguments, and that would definately
>have to be done so they wouldn't choke on an odd value of
>val1_unit/val2_unit being returned.
>
> I'd be happy to hear anyone else's opinions on this, and any
>suggestions you have. I'd be happy to implement whatever we decide on
>if anyone would like me to.
>
> (and yes, I did subscribe to this list before posting this; so I
>could hear discussions about current developments...)
>
> - Chris
>
>--
>Chris P. Ross Pubnix systems (a division of
>cross_at_va.pubnix.com UUNET Technologies, Inc.)
>cross_at_uu.net
>--
>Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
>To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
>message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
>To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
>
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Mon Dec 15 1997 - 12:37:14 GMT