From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7296: display-pixel-height not enough Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:44:38 +0800 Message-ID: <4CCE6FE6.8020407@gnu.org> References: <83hbg66vt4.fsf@gnu.org> <83d3qt77lj.fsf@gnu.org> <4CCA9E5D.5060002@swipnet.se> <838w1h6zbp.fsf@gnu.org> <4CCAC90B.4070800@swipnet.se> <4CCB2713.5070104@swipnet.se> <4CCBC930.5060705@swipnet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288599235 31883 80.91.229.12 (1 Nov 2010 08:13:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 08:13:55 +0000 (UTC) To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 01 09:13:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCpWV-0005kf-PD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:13:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59781 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCpWV-0000Nu-03 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:13:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56346 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCpWB-0000JS-9R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:13:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCpW2-0007D7-Nw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:13:27 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:54611) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCpW2-0007D3-MN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:13:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp0o-0000dc-1v; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:41:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Jason Rumney Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:41:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.12885972482446 (code B ref -1); Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Nov 2010 07:40:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp0a-0000dP-JD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:40:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp0Z-0000dJ-Pv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:40:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp4j-0001Oh-5M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:45:07 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:45819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp4j-0001Od-3C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54539 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCp4i-0004oY-30 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:45:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp4h-0001OC-1F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:45:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pv0-f169.google.com ([74.125.83.169]:48688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCp4g-0001Nz-Su for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: by pvc21 with SMTP id 21so770982pvc.0 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UbTnnFAqN2CpGAi25uuNHyV53L1gsQHQrZa9VxwmR70=; b=j2W+L2trZV46I184vlokjg75Ie8nVtadCiDq9swSbiqrmScto9NsBHO1H0kll7ewLN AaVQP8GONudVduOYmoDQyS2uCaBfNNqLlr92EmdpgI4i86Olx8757TSYXNSXix8RNIGD i+8rFW6vvAaRAobrb4ZVDJIEv0B5MtAgB+Ras= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Zc1Sk+8y0Bzl/jFqV4DnkxWBw6JL32B73aNxM1gPipZ7WztHsoIxQjp9VCKVvY0F4n 51a7yyKEZVjQ6LnDkW4WOEaAc93b4QY+klC4zVld0zrugvOQ3VDlbHLkMMo+jjRNQy9Y E73LSr0ve362w4NgxIl1El8fuvOycVAkPyN3A= Original-Received: by 10.142.126.10 with SMTP id y10mr618164wfc.97.1288597501416; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.1.1.54] ([61.4.103.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w15sm5467645wfd.9.2010.11.01.00.44.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:45:00 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:41:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:41329 Archived-At: On 01/11/2010 09:26, Lennart Borgman wrote: > In what way can the working display area size in pixels be > incompatible? And why is using the current total display area size > better (and more compatible)? > I recall some years ago seeing some lisp code that wanted to calculate the real dpi of the display, as opposed to what is reported by the system (which can be influenced by user settings for font size, or in some cases hardcoded to 72, 96 or other common values). The change you are proposing would be incompatible with that way of using display-pixel-height.