bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > > For example, increasing the font size should not make a 
> > > maximized frame larger than the screen.  We're kidding users
> > > with such behavior.
> > 
> > 1. Your argument here applies to any size increase beyond 
> > the screen size, not just doing that via `set-frame-font'.
> > So it is irrelevant as an argument why resizing via
> > `set-frame-font' should be an exception.
> 
> It _is_ relevant, because Martin's argument applies not only to
> increasing maximized frames, but also to decreasing their size as
> well, as side effect of any change except an explicit change in frame
> dimensions.

What argument?  That is the conclusion, but what is the argument supporting it?

> IOW, when the frame is maximized, only explicitly changing its height
> or width, or explicitly un-maximizing it, should

Should why?  That's the question.  Haven't seen an answer yet.

> ever affect the frame's size.  Any other changes, such as font change or
> adding/removing scroll bars or fringes -- should

Should why?

> leave the frame at the same pixel dimensions, i.e. still maximized.

All of that just repeats the claim; it does not support it.
That is the claim for which I am asking for a supporting reason.

You have also generalized beyond just `set-frame-font' (the only exception
mentioned until now, AFAIK), BTW.  Now it is apparently not just
`set-frame-font' that is the exception but any way of resizing other than
"explicitly changing its height or width, or explicitly un-maximizing it".

My question remains, in any case: What is the _reason_ why such ways of resizing
should be neutered?  What is the _reason_ why "explicitly changing its height or
width, or explicitly un-maximizing it" should be the only way of changing the
size?

There might be a good reason for such a claim, but I've seen none advanced, so
far.  "X because X" is no support for X: it just assumes the conclusion.