Re: desktop layout patch

[Michael Toomim <toomim uclink4 berkeley edu>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

I like this, but...

> +  workspaces are assumed to be nonexistent. Either X or Y (but not
> +  both) may be specified as 0 in which case its actual value will be
> +  derived from <literal>_NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS</literal>.

... what is this special case for?  Can we just keep the spec clean, and 
say that both X and Y MUST have non-zero values?

I wrote a sawfish extension using this protocol for 
select-workspace-up/down/right/left commands, and found this special 
case annoying.  It basically just adds another set of if statements to a 
section of code that's contorted already, and I don't see the point.

This was a part of Waldo's original proposal.  Does anyone know the 
motivation?  If not, can we strike it out?