From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 13:31:24 -0700 Message-ID: <4DBCC1F8F1BA4204B449175E8357EAC7@us.oracle.com> References: <5180DD2B.3080407@gmx.at> <83a9oepwuu.fsf@gnu.org> <5182307C.6000102@gmx.at> <83mwsdnwc8.fsf@gnu.org> <5182B156.2000100@gmx.at> <83bo8tnre7.fsf@gnu.org> <5182B999.4050304@gmx.at> <838v3xnpdo.fsf@gnu.org> <51835DBB.1060609@gmx.at> <4386D48859F6492782CD444664DB8711@us.oracle.com> <83ppx8m5di.fsf@gnu.org> <51840925.4050906@gmx.at> <83ehdnn7ge.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367613152 31132 80.91.229.3 (3 May 2013 20:32:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eenliu@gmail.com, 14326@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 03 22:32:30 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMea-0004m3-Uc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 22:32:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53429 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMea-0004NN-JA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMeV-0004Mv-2W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMeT-0007DC-4J for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:22 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53249) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMeT-0007D7-1e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMf8-0004Gz-FM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:33:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 20:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14326 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs,w32 X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 14326-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B14326.136761313416262 (code B ref 14326); Fri, 03 May 2013 20:33:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2013 20:32:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57357 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMeL-0004ED-E4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:13 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:32439) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMeJ-0004Dz-5N for 14326@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:32:12 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r43KVR6k004324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 May 2013 20:31:28 GMT Original-Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43KVQWE004810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 May 2013 20:31:27 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt103.oracle.com (abhmt103.oracle.com [141.146.116.55]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43KVP0W020989; Fri, 3 May 2013 20:31:25 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.8) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 03 May 2013 13:31:25 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac5IO2JPFV7AqiJiTTyQ+9Q4Cq+HggAADdRg In-Reply-To: <83ehdnn7ge.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:73932 Archived-At: > > > 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.