Curses Windowing Example

.gitignore

demo
*.swp

demo.c

#include <ncurses.h>
#include <unistd.h>

void draw_borders(WINDOW *screen) {
  int x, y, i;

  getmaxyx(screen, y, x);

  // 4 corners
  mvwprintw(screen, 0, 0, "+");
  mvwprintw(screen, y - 1, 0, "+");
  mvwprintw(screen, 0, x - 1, "+");
  mvwprintw(screen, y - 1, x - 1, "+");

  // sides
  for (i = 1; i < (y - 1); i++) {
    mvwprintw(screen, i, 0, "|");
    mvwprintw(screen, i, x - 1, "|");
  }

  // top and bottom
  for (i = 1; i < (x - 1); i++) {
    mvwprintw(screen, 0, i, "-");
    mvwprintw(screen, y - 1, i, "-");
  }
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  int parent_x, parent_y, new_x, new_y;
  int score_size = 3;

  initscr();
  noecho();
  curs_set(FALSE);

  // set up initial windows
  getmaxyx(stdscr, parent_y, parent_x);

  WINDOW *field = newwin(parent_y - score_size, parent_x, 0, 0);
  WINDOW *score = newwin(score_size, parent_x, parent_y - score_size, 0);

  draw_borders(field);
  draw_borders(score);

  while(1) {
    getmaxyx(stdscr, new_y, new_x);

    if (new_y != parent_y || new_x != parent_x) {
      parent_x = new_x;
      parent_y = new_y;

      wresize(field, new_y - score_size, new_x);
      wresize(score, score_size, new_x);
      mvwin(score, new_y - score_size, 0);

      wclear(stdscr);
      wclear(field);
      wclear(score);

      draw_borders(field);
      draw_borders(score);
    }

    // draw to our windows
    mvwprintw(field, 1, 1, "Field");
    mvwprintw(score, 1, 1, "Score");

    // refresh each window
    wrefresh(field);
    wrefresh(score);
  }

  endwin();

  return 0;
}

Makefile

CFLAGS=-Wall
LDFLAGS=-lncurses

all: demo

clean:
	rm -rf demo

A possible solution to reduce the CPU load due to while (1):
A timer interrupt for checking "getmaxyx(stdscr, new_y, new_x);"
Though this gist is meant to see the functionality of resizing and not for resource efficiency.
@FuryaevStas: Your comment does help out people to avoid using the re-size logic as-is, in their actual implementation.

Would a possible alternative be to handle the signal SIGWINCH? Ex: this Stack Overflow.

Yes, and that would be much better for the CPU, having a busy while is almost never the answer. @robherley

There is 100% CPU usage because there is no usleep being used, which is normally common in such loops. You would need it if you're doing any animation.

This version: https://gist.github.com/wmcbrine/f63e83d659cedd5181ae77c56907addb

1. Loops at 0% CPU; quits on 'q'.
2. Uses box().
3. Is compatible with PDCurses as well as ncurses.

There is 100% CPU usage because there is no usleep being used, which is normally common in such loops.

While that would be an improvement over the original example, my advice is:

1. In a curses-based program, don't use usleep() where napms() will suffice. usleep() introduces a POSIX dependency, while napms() is native to curses, so the app may still be portable to non-POSIX systems.
2. Don't use napms() where a blocking getch() will do. Most curses apps will and should spend most of their time in an idle loop waiting on user input, so you may as well let getch() do the work of idling. In the case of this example, even resize events are reported as KEY_RESIZE key events by ncurses and PDCurses. And even in cases where a non-blocking getch() is needed, you can often rely on mechanisms like halfdelay() or timeout() instead of resorting to an explicit napms().