From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60607200955i4033c5b0kfcc86dbc194910a2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:55:25 -0700
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch
In-Reply-To: <44BF9B62.7000905@lanl.gov>
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>
	<3e1162e60607191803t58bb1c6an92ebed70f10cf9ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<44BF9B62.7000905@lanl.gov>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 867c2242-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 7/20/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> David Leimbach wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> um, so, what was this patch? I lost track.
>
> ron
>

All it does is change winwatch behavior so that if you right click a
label for a window that's hidden, the window unhides. If the window is
not hidden, it hides it.

I'm starting to believe I don't need this functionality now... (though
if I'm opening up other "sub-rio's" it's convenient to be able to hide
windows as well as raise them with winwatch).  I started feeling like
it wasn't so important once I saw:

/n/sources/patch/sorry/ww-hideunhide

This patch was a little better than mine in terms of error checking...
the differences are minor.

Russ commented that he didn't think it was necessary to have such
behavior in his notes and I think I'm starting to agree.

Dave