On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:15 PM martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:

>  > Thank you for the patch and continued focus on this. The following is
> the
>  > behavior I see on NS with the patch applied with target width 1700 and
>  > height 1000. These are results from clone-frame using text-pixels which
>  > I've included below without explicit pixelwise argument so it respects
>  > frame-resize-pixelwise.
>
> Thank you for conducting these experiments.
>

My pleasure, actually. I live inside Emacs so the better we make it for us
the better for all.

 > Note: frame-inhibit-implied-resize=(tab-bar-lines) is the default setting
>  > on NS:
>  >
>  > #if defined (USE_GTK) || defined (HAVE_NS)
>  >    frame_inhibit_implied_resize = list1 (Qtab_bar_lines);
>  >
>  > frame-resize-pixelwise=nil frame-inhibit-implied-resize=nil
> text-width=1692
>  > (Δ-8) text-height=984 (Δ-16) native-width=1727 (Δ-8) native-height 988
>  > (Δ-16)
>  >
>  > Result: respects lines/cols as expected.
>
> It's problematic to clone a frame made with 'frame-resize-pixelwise'
> non-nil in a setting with 'frame-resize-pixelwise' nil.  I always have
> 'frame-resize-pixelwise' t and never change it.
>

As you pointed out, these are experiments and reflect the desire to fully
understand (and control) Emacs behavior under various circumstances we
encounter.


>  > frame-resize-pixelwise=t frame-inhibit-implied-resize=(tab-bar-lines)
>  > text-width=1700 (Δ0) text-height=1000 (Δ0) native-width=1735 (Δ0)
>  > native-height 1004 (Δ0)
>  >
>  > Result: Okay by accident, I think, only because tab-bar-lines parameter
> is
>  > nil during adjust_frame_height invocations?
>
> adjust_frame_size you mean, I suppose.  Does your frame have a tab bar?
>

Yes, typo. These results are all under -Q as we need to repro, so no
visible tab bar, just the default NS view which is the tool bar which under
master, now appears on the title bar. Something I didn't notice until today
but it's neither here nor there, I suppose. I disable tool-bar under all my
own real-world circumstances.

 > frame-resize-pixelwise=t frame-inhibit-implied-resize=nil text-width=1700
>  > (Δ0) text-height=1000 (Δ0) native-width=1735 (Δ0) native-height 1004
> (Δ0)
>  >
>  > Result: Okay but with frame-inhibit-implied-resize nil, I'd have
> expected
>  > rows/cols vs. pixelwise.
>
> Why?  'frame-inhibit-implied-resize' is about _not_ resizing a frame's
> window when one removes/adds one of the items it mentions.  It should
> work with pixelwise and normal resizing.
>

I said that because the latest patch respects frame-inhibit-implied-resize
not frame-resize-pixelwise.

 > frame-resize-pixelwise=t frame-inhibit-implied-resize=t text-width=1685
>  > (Δ-15) text-height=1000 (Δ0) native-width=1720 (Δ-15) native-height 1004
>  > (Δ0)
>  >
>  > Result: I think this case remains broken needing the adjustment from
> your
>  > first patch that you wanted to also account for fringes?
>
> 15 is an odd number so it can't be the default fringes.  IIUC it's your
> scroll bar which gets set up after the "frame was made" and while
> resizing is inhibited.  Note that the fringes are purely Emacs internal
> - we can set them up any way we like.  The scroll bar is more difficult
> since the toolkit usually determines its default width.  You could try
> to debug this with a breakpoint in 'gui_set_scroll_bar_width' and after
> that one in 'frame_inhibit_resize'.  Here on xfwm/GTK-3 the text width
> remains unchanged.
>

Indeed 15 is the vertical scroll bar width. This was what I reported in the
original bug submission. You suggested a patch that would accommodate
fringes, et.al. If you'd like me to make adjustments; e.g., resizing
fringes or whatever, happy to do it and rerun.

These are all ostensively calls to clone-frame. I'd expect, as I guess most
people would, that cloning produces the precise geometry of the originating
frame, scroll bar or not.


>  > My default GUI setup is frame-resize-pixelwise t
>  > frame-inhibit-implied-resize t as I expect many people have adopted
> these
>  > days.
>
> Few people have AFAICT.  Note that all these experiments are borderline.
> Cloning a frame should respect the settings that were active at the time
> the original was made.  We can try to make it behave reasonably when
> these values change but I am not sure whether we will succeed.
>

Let's try.

-Stephane