no, ordering floating clients at the end seems better
This commit is contained in:
parent
838a1ff950
commit
0d0e8bde13
3 changed files with 17 additions and 19 deletions
25
view.c
25
view.c
|
@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ dotile(Arg *arg)
|
|||
maximized = False;
|
||||
|
||||
w = sw - mw;
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c) && !c->isfloat)
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c && !c->isfloat; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c))
|
||||
n++;
|
||||
|
||||
if(n > 1)
|
||||
|
@ -186,8 +186,8 @@ resizecol(Arg *arg)
|
|||
unsigned int n;
|
||||
Client *c;
|
||||
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c) && !c->isfloat)
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c && !c->isfloat; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c))
|
||||
n++;
|
||||
if(!sel || sel->isfloat || n < 2 || (arrange != dotile) || maximized)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
@ -311,22 +311,15 @@ zoom(Arg *arg)
|
|||
unsigned int n;
|
||||
Client *c;
|
||||
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c) && !c->isfloat)
|
||||
for(n = 0, c = clients; c && !c->isfloat; c = c->next)
|
||||
if(isvisible(c))
|
||||
n++;
|
||||
if(!sel || sel->isfloat || n < 2 || (arrange != dotile) || maximized)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
/* this is somewhat tricky, it asserts to only zoom tiled clients */
|
||||
for(c = getnext(clients); c && c->isfloat; c = getnext(c->next));
|
||||
if(c) {
|
||||
if(c == sel)
|
||||
for(c = getnext(c->next); c && c->isfloat; c = getnext(c->next));
|
||||
else
|
||||
c = sel;
|
||||
}
|
||||
if(!c)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
if((c = sel) == getnext(clients))
|
||||
if(!(c = getnext(c->next)) || c->isfloat)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
detach(c);
|
||||
c->next = clients;
|
||||
clients->prev = c;
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue