I've tried to make as few changes, as possible.
Usually the reason for using qsort_r is, that you can pass an extra userdata pointer to the
compare function. However, in sway list_sort wrapped qsort_r and always called a wrapper
function for comparing, the wrapper function then had the real compare function as argument.
The only thing, that the wrapper function does, is dereferencing the 'left' and 'right' function
arguments before passing them to the real compare function.
I have renamed list_sort to list_qsort to avoid confusion (so nobody tries to use list_qsort like
list_sort) and removed the wrapper functionality. Now the dereferencing must be done in the
compare function, that gets passed.
Some compare functions were used in both list_sort and list_seq_find. To make the difference
clear, I've added a '_qsort' suffix to the compare functions, that are intended to be used with
the new list_qsort. (In other words: list_qsort is not compatible anymore with list_seq_find).
- Changed and renamed function (it isn't used anywhere but in commands.c, and only for sorting):
compare_set -> compare_set_qsort
- New wrapper functions:
sway_binding_cmp_qsort (for sway_binding_cmp)
sway_mouse_binding_cmp_qsort (for sway_mouse_binding_cmp)
Our initial implementation of `bar { }` assumed that the commands could
only be used in the config. This is not true for two commands:
* bar mode
* bar hidden_state
This patch makes it possible to issue these commands outside a bar
block, for instance through swaymsg
$ swaymsg bar mode hide bar-0
This does not implement the `barconfig_update` IPC event which should be
trigged from these commands. I have added TODO's where this should be
added once implemented.
This works by tracking the pids of the child processes in the related
output container and terminating the processes and spawning new ones on
a config reload.
Should solve: #347
If the id is defined by another bar it will just use the default id for
the bar. Typically `bar-x`.
If the id command is used multiple times within a bar block, the last
one will 'win'.
