bug#29805: 27.0; doc of `tooltip-resize-echo-area'

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

>  > In any case, it seems to have no effect, AFAICT, on a standalone
>  > minibuffer frame (i.e., on an echo area in such a frame).  The doc
>  > says nothing about this..
> 
> I believe we also nowhere say that we do not resize minibuffer/echo
> areas on stand-alone minibuffer frames.

I believe so too.

> So the question to be
> answered first is: Do we ever want to fit stand-alone minibuffer
> frames to their buffers?

Please don't bother for me, anyway. ;-)

> If so, then we can decide whether we want
> `tooltip-resize-echo-area' to affect resizing stand-alone minibuffer
> frames as well and probably also whether showing a tooltip should
> autoraise the minibuffer frame.

Again, speaking for myself, I don't need any of that.

The bug report was really to suggest that such doc about
resizing the space for the minibuffer / echo area should
not lead people to believe that such resizing resizes a
frame.  It applies only to a window in a frame that is
not minibuffer-only (AFAICT), so that should be made clear.

> But the first question that comes to my mind is why we now have the
> option `tooltip-resize-echo-area' which, according to its doc-string
> "has effect only on GUI frames" while in Emacs 24.1 we have declared
> `tooltip-use-echo-area' obsolete and suggested to disable tooltips
> instead.

1. No idea why we now have it.
2. The doc string is wrong to refer to `tooltip-use-echo-area'.

> Resolved that, we should probably then also say that
> `tooltip-resize-echo-area' has effect iff `resize-mini-windows' is
> non-nil.

And why isn't `resize-mini-windows' enough?  Is this about
resizing ONLY the echo area and not the minibuffer?  (Does
that even make sense?)

It's all unclear to me.