On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 06:57:48PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 07:04:05PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 06:05:37PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Heh, it's a one liner. I HAZ DILLLO EICONZ NAOW!!!
Cool! But perhaps it should even be "Dillo" instead of "Dillo2". It's still dillo after all.
I thought about that, then I decided that since we now use dillo2rc I would go with dillo2 for consistency. But it's no big deal, I'd be as happy with "dillo" as "dillo2" because icewm can map any given value of WM_CLASS to any icon name.
Incidentally, we could alternatively call fltk::Window::show() with argc and argv as arguments (it's overloaded). That would do the default thing of taking WM_CLASS from argv[0], so we would get "dillo-fltk". I decided not to because it means passing argc and argv from main() in dillo.cc to the call to fltk::Window::show() in uicmd.cc and I wanted the shortest patch that could possibly work. But maybe there's a case for doing it that way. (Perhaps it's time to rename the executable to dillo2, or even dillo?) I don't care as long as we change WM_CLASS from the default of "fltk" to *something* that I can map to the dillo icons in my icewm configuration.
Yes, it's time to change the binary name. I like dillo2 because that way it's possible to have dillo1 and dillo2 installed without trouble. OTOH, dillo2 is still dillo and dillo1 is obsolete. Maybe "dillo" is the best option. What do others think? -- Cheers Jorge.-