New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] hide_edge_borders option smart-both #3575

Open
felixblind opened this Issue Jan 4, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@felixblind
Copy link

felixblind commented Jan 4, 2019

As of i3 4.16, which I run, there is an option "hide_edge_borders" with the alternatives "none|vertical|horizontal|both|smart". The smart version hides all borders if only one window is visible, the vertical option hides the vertical border of windows bordering on the edge of the screen if there is more than one window.
I would like to have an option smart-vertical which hides all borders if only one window is visible and hides the vertical border of windows bordering on the edge of the screen if there is more than one window at the same time.
For reasons of symmetry the option smart-horizontal and smart-both probably make sense but they are not what I would like to run.

@i3bot i3bot added the enhancement label Jan 4, 2019

@Airblader

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Airblader commented Jan 4, 2019

I have to say I'm not a fan of extending this even more. I think we have reached the maximum sensible complexity already, we don't need to support all arbitrary combinations. This particular case could be implemented by using only the vertical option and implementing the smart part externally using the IPC, so I would recommend going down that route.

If we were to support this, we'd have to find a better syntax than a long list of names with this redundant information, but for that to be worth it I think we should have wait to see if there's enough user demand.

@felixblind

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

felixblind commented Jan 4, 2019

That seems to be a very sensible approach.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment