From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:45:50 +0100 Message-ID: <792e250c-07b1-60ce-82d1-596b1db2a3f3@gmx.at> References: <87eeyd3ul0.fsf@bernoul.li> <83d0dt2qt6.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2290w24.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnhs6wwp.fsf@gnu.org> <83k1806qca.fsf@gnu.org> <8336en7giv.fsf@gnu.org> <81264049-4f88-fae7-6448-e0ac5d977268@gmx.at> <83a78u5s8y.fsf@gnu.org> <17cbad77-efb8-9e9e-9a14-99e2e2bc5782@gmx.at> <83v9ri4agk.fsf@gnu.org> <83a78t42de.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="104149"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: jonas@bernoul.li, 38181@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 18 19:47:46 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3u-000QyJ-5n for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:47:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38200 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3s-0000gm-AQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:47:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40900) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3E-0000bp-9B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:47:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3C-0002cJ-Bf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:47:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37433) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3C-0002cE-7T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:47:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm3C-0000e9-2T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:47:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:47:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 38181 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 38181-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B38181.15741027682413 (code B ref 38181); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:47:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 38181) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Nov 2019 18:46:08 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46251 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm2J-0000cq-8p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:55603) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iWm2H-0000bn-7C for 38181@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:46:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1574102753; bh=mGOEcaY0c52cQGDHOannbGcHXvcqTK0aLIgiuc2YVYo=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=csVeQ5rSBfzJC66SeMARGJxz33xargV1Qzz+x5O+6D7VtVaO1/PousYnHlG3jW7+s S+dfRH/cPO5lYvIyW7/gxRu4VMZiOUmtROGFle5sfdrVKsjJvDA8qEoTOHtv+MYQXK m/uWYJ41o9pSZ0YIPyTuxPSo2mM4tY8rHIJmS7j0= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([212.95.5.110]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0G1n-1hcCuM2PAN-00xIR9; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:45:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83a78t42de.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: de-AT X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:VpmP/5mdChYOoCj40RzTvAfL9r8axLJ8F3wQlqwySjK39gNjOSJ tE4QsvvYCZXaYCfpi3s+7o518IvHuudPqIuuGU1CDjr1S6fF0m6+vVAkS8CMIL/WSfCJwHv yXzYrNnYJ7jD2A3F5hghwZLB9TDgfHHjyiO18p0gK4+EMOoiFkGqQsYBgGxVyMPJYK2e9WG uXWqKEUcofVzHlhcibxRw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:gulK8y03TAY=:jT9pKBJzepuquCFDKNf1in W2JobsTpGn5SoDkFpaE/ZJDvciqkt/tx1yaAArYxuf+OiHmusfXhA7tNb2CrkW8f1WEjud+sq tYmXSIMQZDl012F3hqsKkwNxim5waabmDXKYe4Rv6w1LTf3olfZ6DSroae68r7slkF3WIWhzk fjhyCShL63xqnI+Mubs+hhp7z1NOYuYXaxmU8p7N6xAiwEsGCGUxcj4Q2+vdUs32N4InuL+My K8pQpR1qqK6K7qtg2HCf6WuicafAxI1Qko0IBY14ZXQU/hq24g5h0aYtdcD4PJysxZAsUVj9R kyjbeaXYeJzfcQ6CGINoQ5X7IkRGHRZYzXv3vrXpFdKI8Ev3t4EaBxb6vTtEEHrFgR8xL+j7A KnDw7x738jxT8tCMEqQOpFSfXwY278opcLxaW5hX1pQr7grvSjQhI3/B+SQvEhXpCdLPcGRjE dcQe0/s/km+goLsTo2jsgCIf0fVOMekkQFt+pa2m+2ID3AeuHy0l78y3DNBBn2SRMuQAWuGVI f3VyJ5Gi6dhZn+lkvTE1leOkF89xjQYPkfOyQbNw/AEbNMrpekQIzQKRIb+pM5ANyzCbKSruN Q+Ue1qgngmv366yTs2x+TlZ54pxqO4uabpVRMukhQXocRQ3G+Bvi9MPqPI1n7n3USAXXMwfZ5 eFzYShL6RiC1z/zGhPxEEbFtl92Ync+xfK57ig1KhBlW/QszcrPHJtlmT8Fknffi3i+h4DhzG j37Oi3y2D9+lxFsu3LjgYRQqzFADkBmANQKusTSM1txkQNrPm/qEBZ5BzT5LlKL/Owc3AVNz 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: 209.51.188.43 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:171931 Archived-At: >> I suppose so. But please always keep in mind that the window code >> does not handle problems caused by specifications in the mode and >> header lines immediately. > > What kind of problems are we talking about? Any problems with the minimum size of windows as the one described in the next sentence. >> For example, it will not auto-resize a one-line window when its mode >> line height is increased to more than its text height. > > That's a separate issue, isn't it? It's similar, at least. The scroll bar issue is another similar one. >> Because 'fit-window-to-buffer' now has to calculate the mode line >> height which it didn't before and which for the majority of users >> never changes. > > Is that a significant problem? I hope it isn't. > It's not like fit-window-to-buffer is > expected to be called in a tight loop, right? Displaying a mode line > is no more expensive (actually, even usually expensive) than calling > vertical-motion to move one line, and we would never think twice > before adding a call to the latter, right? Agreed (I suppose you meant to say "even usually less expensive" above). martin