From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#16051: 24.3.50; Emacs hang - resize frame manually Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:45:26 +0100 Message-ID: <52B9D646.7090606@gmx.at> References: <3eea48d4-9267-45fa-84c8-3eb9c9290558@default> <52B59B44.9060307@poczta.onet.pl> <83a9fu9r1j.fsf@gnu.org> <52B5B7EA.2080809@poczta.onet.pl> <837gay9nx2.fsf@gnu.org> <52B5CC35.10404@gmx.at> <83zjnr7bea.fsf@gnu.org> <52B88491.1000903@gmx.at> <83ppon74a9.fsf@gnu.org> <52B896D0.8050904@gmx.at> <83mwjr724b.fsf@gnu.org> <52B95E81.6070208@gmx.at> <83a9fq6tmb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1387910776 4891 80.91.229.3 (24 Dec 2013 18:46:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl, 16051@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 24 19:46:21 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 1VvWzl-00019D-2g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:46:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40106 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWzk-00048T-OQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:46:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWzZ-000484-Ov for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:46:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWzS-0001Y9-EH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:46:09 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53763) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWzS-0001Y4-BF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWzR-00015Z-SF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:46:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:46:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16051 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16051-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16051.13879107394139 (code B ref 16051); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:46:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16051) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Dec 2013 18:45:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWz4-00014g-EA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:45:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:63068) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VvWz2-00014X-3f for 16051@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:45:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.47.57.148] ([62.47.57.148]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6AbC-1VXfLI2OMs-00y9fl for <16051@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:45:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83a9fq6tmb.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rm+LQ4GvbwUUMhiQMztyw80wVJ2cy37Izjd5rl7naqoi+8OBXXd x/eE3L5dgZR6S9/F6XVAHRg91WNBtracQelt9GwFhTYN4LGa4gBpWSO9MQ7YePva/rGP+ZV zzKVo7ToGdGg9UqKGpajXc3+5TynebqoEmgS3Do6aieV0eSVVn+ne32I6fDwd4XpQ6fBCTr 1mfj2S/WZYLD5ciCZN/Yw== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.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:82541 Archived-At: >> > The frame size should remain as it was -- as the user determined by >> > dragging. >> >> But this means that we currently do change the frame size. > > I think we are miscommunicating, because we certainly don't change the > frame size; the user does. Tha user only asks us to change it. And the point I wanted to make here is that instead of changing it we could refuse to change it, either by (1) setting the according wm hints, or by (2) issuing a re-resize request to the wm, or by (3) simply not processing the new frame size and let the wm do the clipping. Now (1) seems difficult because people can change height and width at the same time and with a wrapping toolbar we hardly can specify the proper hints here (essentially we would have to be able to pass the minimum size of the Emacs window to the wm). (2) is not nice although we do something similar already IIRC. So my preference for this is (3). Which would just imply that the size of an Emacs frame does not correspond to what the user sees. >> > We should not change it. The question is what value should >> > we limit the tool bar to, given those constraints, and how much space >> > should we leave to the rest of the root window of the frame. >> >> What we do when there's no toolbar, I presume. That is, if there's not >> enough space, then kill the toolbar. > > That's too drastic I think. We are perfectly capable of displaying > the tool bar truncated to the part that can be rendered. If the user > doesn't like that, she can always turn off the tool bar manually. > After all, it's the user who caused this. It's not a question of what we can display. The problem is that our internal understanding of the geometry of a frame is broken when the toolbar gets a greater height than the containing frame. martin