From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:36:13 +0200 Message-ID: <58DB63ED.8060305@gmx.at> References: "<0b9853e8ecbdb18bb1b8c05347371a7e@127.0.0.1>" <58B925A4.4060406@gmx.at> "" <58BA900B.6040708@gmx.at> "<49adf8e1615512ac19189d75b5e04315@127.0.0.1>" <58BE8138.1040607@gmx.at> "<142b4d1d519a6bf87a5fe320d9eeb419@127.0.0.1>" <58C118CA.8020908@gmx.at> <2395d7c6fbe7358c894bc1406ffcbf45@127.0.0.1> <58C3CF94.3080604@gmx.at> <58D38075.2030409@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1490773038 2514 195.159.176.226 (29 Mar 2017 07:37:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "25943@debbugs.gnu.org" <25943@debbugs.gnu.org> To: david@ngdr.net Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 29 09:37:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AH-0008Mu-OF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57103 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AN-0004dj-Oo for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:37:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56293) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AF-0004dX-VX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:37:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AB-0006b6-2Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:37:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51833) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AA-0006an-V3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:37:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ct8AA-0006sc-Pw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:37:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25943 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25943-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25943.149077299626389 (code B ref 25943); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:37:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25943) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2017 07:36:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50028 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ct89k-0006rX-50 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:36:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:50330) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ct89i-0006rG-Ps for 25943@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:36:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.73]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3vCA-1c1qkE18Zm-00rYfB; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:36:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:luAg9E1pO1UDMi+6weQFpX4Ml+k7w/eOnKTIHxqsVx+g111gym6 Kkxaug6nWaeBTWqQs6xq9gcHr0xHHFEZAb6WQk72YYaDjTUgUTbJwktOV+JEKLaD5kPvqjn o9ihkgJHG0U3uMYvyTasP2nFLWxfn/V8RksEJNycRToEyV6wYK54/bjobnKTzz9DJlWarT4 PODMeTJNyVh/Pwl6nUkfg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:9ZnDg09jsSA=:qhhJ6kZobz5PZM1WcLBMxA ZBnZwkVbdUpSXCHRZ0EHu6MjS6q1SVc3b7Ta7JbtwoOog8fo5Fsh/ABY+ZTTUQGE+moHIKr/h lAetYWR8WkZMVa6mLm6os1CQNa9SS00eEXM7DSu+885TmGbIrWaN0RVI2jrsM3xL/sZPkRMlj Q94KgUNn51gJVLXziT9K/IVz+hoNkGqk2w+ZGFk6ZS2YP1JiyHRY3QkxgbYSOo9x2wqbBabg8 DSq8QtA8kPEYOG0Mj8/dSNkPHfuhzFwVjlnaLvIxxJCJ4xnMsNfzByMRlCC/HlWofOiyNKvg8 LxdBFd07H4CfTFX20l11b+lSl3Hjgz5h3QsqMDqQ2nc0AO2j01Sm/j0iJrwYPqT4glQJ4XqqW MVekCpUi6LETVCCsursF8/2AfnI2cXexUe44PZbe75ul8IB2BRvprsUS4jjM/wMEKdxXoMgar PEQteN1ImDxjJb8dyur3tK/DFpR43EUfD3lBH7B+Khq4dCp9H4gwNdbSCX7Ekvn6ybpiE9vPR daefkmUolS8CuGi1XE9cVOPR7jMZcDVk6UYPksffuoHakUz0HPZIUkoUH/2KfmTE593mwORK6 ar5ZboCo5VQrAOPRJCPGgqJ+V4VA0dSWePrBamk65UKkf5AkD8bzfFWV450l2YYOgDdRAZfIJ oexTl4yDdOQkZDBuKV0IvxKWwqAKzpFPmD4FwWVEiakwVRS/v9c9YEk/mvtfiRij/N3eH4j5W tOB8UGDDTrkE7QUc7NZ9HdF1xqI/Oejcaf28PlUlG2yHhqlYdcw1qedQXa4GAMPj+ksA0XG2 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:131052 Archived-At: > I have run your frame-position code a few times; I have not had time to do > anything else. I suppose you did not (or were not able to) apply my patch so (setq x-gtk-use-window-move t) had not effect on the outcome of your runs. Right? > I am unable to do anything similar for 23.2 because > function frame-position does not exist in 23.2. I forgot. Instead of (pos (frame-position frame)) (left (car pos)) (top (cdr pos)) use (left (frame-parameter frame 'left)) (top (frame-parameter frame 'top)) for Emacs 23. > Mostly, but not always, the 9-C (fun) frames are consistently in their > correct corner. This is true for the 1-4 (arg) frames as well; I do not > have any record of a deviation, so arg frames may be perfect. The 5-8 > (par) frames are the deviants, which seem to go the the Left Top corner. Your results for 25.1 are better than mine. Here only the "arg" runs position correctly. The "fun" and "par" frames all end up in the top left corner. So if you do want to continue working with an unpatched Emacs 25.1 and want more or less correct positioning you will have to use the "arg" notation. Otherwise you will have to either patch your 25.1 or switch to the current development version. ( (arg ... (name . "4 Right Bottom") (p-left . -40) (p-top . -40) (left . 1181) (top . 694) (width . 816) (height . 400) (r-left . -51) (r-top . -58)) It might be interesting to see where these differences in the "arg" case come from - 11 pixels horizontally and 18 pixels vertically. What does M-: (frame-geometry) in that frame return? Thanks, martin