Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Proposal: Fullscreen only container layout #561

Closed
theherk opened this issue Oct 4, 2024 · 0 comments
Closed

Proposal: Fullscreen only container layout #561

theherk opened this issue Oct 4, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@theherk
Copy link

theherk commented Oct 4, 2024

With respect to this comment in #558, I would like to propose a configuration option.

For starters, thank you for your feedback @nikitabobko, and I agree about the 0 padding being somewhat illogical usually, however there is a use case that may warrant such a configuration. Currently, the fullscreen command almost does what is needed, except that it applies to an application rather than a workspace.

The scenario is this: there is at least one application (Zed), which sort of hides the presence of multiple windows. So if you open multiple projects, there are separate windows that occupy the same coordinates, and when you switch to the application, you get the most recent project. Then, the most practical way to switch projects is to do so in the application's project switcher, which then takes you to the correct window. All this works perfectly fine with the accordion, but since the project switching is done in the application, the accordion padding is just wasting space that isn't providing any practical information.

What would be good is either to be able to set padding per workspace, or have a fullscreen layout for a workspace which makes every application take the full area. That does diminish the information about how many applications are open on a workspace, but in a way that is actually beneficial in certain cases.


Also, I completely understand if this is rejected out of hand for adding complexity or ambiguity, but I'm curious if others run into this same thing. I am super happy with the current system. Thank you for all the hard work.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 27, 2024
@nikitabobko nikitabobko converted this issue into discussion #629 Oct 27, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant