From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60607191803t58bb1c6an92ebed70f10cf9ab@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:03:25 -0700
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60607191757n6d9986b5ra60ef46e8245ce4c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3e1162e60607191757n6d9986b5ra60ef46e8245ce4c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 858de258-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I did find one situation where hiding is useful... and that's when
I've taken up all of my root rio's desktop space with this sidebar
strip, and want to quickly hide winwatch itself.

*shrug*

I'll probably snap back to the old version.

On 7/19/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somehow I missed that ww was for "winwatch" :-)... D'oh!
>
> Seems someone else wanted winwatch to hide and unhide windows.
>
> it was rejected because the original interface was intended to be a
> click just like clicking in rio.
>
> However it's already making it so I don't have to go through the rio
> menu to find the window I want to unhide, it seemed logical to try to
> re-hide it if it's not the one I'm looking for.
>
> I find it useful to make winwatch a long stripe vertically and have
> several independent sub-rio sessions as "virtual desktops".  However
> it occurs to me that simple raising of each session above the other is
> sufficient.
>
> Oh well... at least I tried to do something :-)
>
> Dave
>