bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Drew Adams]

Done.

This is a request to finish implementing this feature, i.e. to implement it on
w32.

See bug #5271 for the feature description.


 
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Djärv [mailto:jan.h.d@swipnet.se] 
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:26 AM
To: Drew Adams Cc: 5721@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute
coordinates

Drew Adams skrev 2010-07-01 19.27:
> Not the point.  I did not ask you to implement it.  I asked you to leave the
> feature request open.  That way, someone who might be able to implement it
might
> find it as a to-do.  Thx.

I don't think those working with w32 browse the bug tracker to find tasks to do.

But besides that, this is free software.  Unless a bug explicitly mentions 
w32, I do think it is done when it is implemented for free systems (in this 
case, nextstep and X).  I will try to not break compilation for non-free 
systems, but that is as far as I go.  The state of Emacs should not depend on 
how well it performs on non-free systems.  If people want to use their time to 
get Emacs going on non-free systems, that is up to them.  But the main drive 
for Emacs are free systems, and those are the ones that must count w.r.t. bugs 
and feature requests.

If you can't implement it, file a new w32-specific bug.

	Jan D.

bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 20:39, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
> Done.
>
> This is a request to finish implementing this feature, i.e. to implement it on
> w32.

To which the proper answer should be

   reopen 5271
   merge 5271 6550

(No, I'm not doing it, but I should.)

    Juanma

bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> This is a request to finish implementing this feature, i.e. to implement it on
> w32.
>
> See bug #5271 for the feature description.

Subject: bug#5271: 23.1; I think both `OBJECT' should be capitalized.

Did you have another bug report in mind?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#6550: [External] : Re: bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Drew Adams]

> > This is a request to finish implementing this feature,
> > i.e. to implement it on w32.  See bug #5271 for the
> > feature description.
> 
> Subject: bug#5271: 23.1; I think both `OBJECT' should be capitalized.
> 
> Did you have another bug report in mind?

5271 is the bug.

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=5721#22

bug#6550: [External] : Re: bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> 5271 is the bug.
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=5721#22

That's 5721.  Thanks for the correction.

So this is about `window-absolute-pixel-edges' and
`window-inside-absolute-pixel-edges' not returning the correct locations
under Windows?

Is this still the case in recent versions of Emacs?  If so, can you
provide an example of the wrong results they return?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#6550: [External] : Re: bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Drew Adams]

> 5721.  Thanks for the correction.
> So this is about `window-absolute-pixel-edges' and
> `window-inside-absolute-pixel-edges' not returning the correct locations
> under Windows?

Yes, I believe so.

> Is this still the case in recent versions of Emacs?  If so, can you
> provide an example of the wrong results they return?

What about you?  (or George?  or Susan?  or...)  Do you
think it's still the case?  Can you provide an example
of the wrong results?  Can you show it's no longer the
case?

My contribution here was simply to agree (11 years ago!)
with several others (including Juanma, who has contributed
a lot to Emacs development on w32) that the bug _should be
left open IF, as they confirmed, it's not yet fixed on w32_.

I still feel that's the right approach.  Do you disagree?

Lennart put it this way:

>> But besides that, this is free software.  Unless a bug
>> explicitly mentions w32, I do think it is done when it is
>> implemented for free systems (in this case, nextstep and X).
>
> Oh, please, I think that would make a mess of
> Emacs.  Leave bugs open until they are implemented
> on all relevant platforms!  Without that a lot of
> time will be wasted when other people again tries
> to find out why things do not work.

Please leave this bug open.  Closing bugs is not
equivalent to fixing bugs, even if some might find
it makes for nice-looking bug-reduction graphs.

Confirmed bug reports are valuable and helpful, even
those that might not be fixed anytime soon.

bug#6550: [External] : Re: bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> My contribution here was simply to agree (11 years ago!)
> with several others (including Juanma, who has contributed
> a lot to Emacs development on w32) that the bug _should be
> left open IF, as they confirmed, it's not yet fixed on w32_.
>
> I still feel that's the right approach.  Do you disagree?

Yes.

I now tested the functions on Windows, and they seemed to work fine, so
I'm closing this bug report.

So you opened this bug report because you imagined that it was possible
that a function you didn't care about, and didn't even bother to test,
was possibly giving a wrong result on a non-primary platform for Emacs?
And then not saying anything specific in that new bug report?

You couldn't have wasted our time more efficiently even if you had
tried, which I guess you didn't.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#6550: [External] : Re: bug#6550: FW: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

[Drew Adams]

> > My contribution here was simply to agree (11 years ago!)
> > with several others (including Juanma, who has contributed
> > a lot to Emacs development on w32) that the bug _should be
> > left open IF, as they confirmed, it's not yet fixed on w32_.
> >
> > I still feel that's the right approach.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Yes.

So you think it should have been closed whether or
not it remained a bug on MS Windows.  (Not that
I'm surprised.)

In that case, why did you even bother now to check
whether the bug still exists on Windows?  Not
needing a bug filed for it if the bug is only for
Windows means not needing...

> I now tested the functions on Windows, and they
> seemed to work fine, so I'm closing this bug report.

Anyway, those who confirmed the bug (and asked to
keep the report open) gave up on this long ago.

See for example Juanma's msg in #6550:

  To which the proper answer should be
     reopen 5271
     merge 5271 6550
  (No, I'm not doing it, but I should.)
      Juanma

Yes, it was ridiculous that we should have to
create a separate bug (#6550) for the same problem,
just for Windows.  But the indication was that was
what needed to be done.  And as 5721 was in fact
left open in the end, yes the bugs were merged.

> So you opened this bug report because you imagined
> that it was possible that a function you didn't care
> about, and didn't even bother to test, was possibly
> giving a wrong result on a non-primary platform for
> Emacs? And then not saying anything specific in that
> new bug report?
> 
> You couldn't have wasted our time more efficiently 
> even if you had tried, which I guess you didn't.

I opened bug #6550 because I was told, in bug #5721,
to do so - the indication was that 5721 would be
closed, not caring about the Windows case.

Several of us argued for 5721 to be kept open till
fixed on MS Windows also.  But the message was that
5721 shouldn't apply to Windows and a new bug should
be opened for that.  I filed #6550 for that, yes.
Mea culpa; no good deed goes unpunished.

Oh, and there was no doubt by anyone of the bug
existing on Windows.  That was never in question by
anyone, including the person who asked us to create
a separate Windows bug for it.

You snarkily make assumptions/claims, about my not
caring about things etc.  Reading these bug reports
should tell you otherwise.  But you'd maybe need to
remove your blinders for that.