Re: bug in set-frame-position?

["Mickey Ferguson" <MFerguson@peinc.com>]

Then maybe we should consider this a feature enhancement - that "-0" should
be interpreted as a negative number with zero offset, just like "-1" is a
negative number with 1 offset.  Whether or not this is feasible here, I
cannot say.  But I know that other systems handle "-0" this way.

"Francis Litterio" <franl@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.13899.1106054097.27204.bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org...
> Mickey Ferguson wrote:
>
> > Now what I want is to be able to specify my window (frame) to be up
against
> > the right-hand side of my screen.  So I thought I would use (set-frame
> > position (selected-frame) -0 0).  Nope, it interprets -0 the same as 0.
The
> > best I could do was -1 0, which left a little space between my window
and
> > the edge of the screen.  Is there any way to specify it flush-right?  Or
is
> > this a bug where it should interpret -0 as meaning flush-right, but it's
> > not?  Or maybe there's another way to do this?
>
> If you know the size of the small gap between the frame's right border
> and the right edge of your display (say, 3 pixels), then you could do
> this:
>
> (set-frame-position frame -1 ypos)
> (set-frame-position frame (+ 3 (frame-parameter frame 'left)) ypos)
>
> This may be caused by the way that function x_calc_absolute_position()
> converts negative left and top frame offsets into equivalent positive
> offsets for your windowing system.
> --
> Francis Litterio
> franl <at> world . std . com
>
>
>