From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#29805: 27.0; doc of `tooltip-resize-echo-area' Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 07:20:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <5A3D4775.2010700@gmx.at> <7614565b-94d6-40fe-a3d1-cf51235a21bc@default> <5A3E14EC.3010809@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1514042379 30510 195.159.176.226 (23 Dec 2017 15:19:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:19:39 +0000 (UTC) To: martin rudalics , 29805@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 23 16:19:35 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlaH-0007W2-V8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:19:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44183 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlcG-0002oQ-IC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:21:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbw-0002ff-L3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:21:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbi-00017J-JP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:21:16 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:40820) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbi-00016A-6Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:21:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbh-0003Hc-S4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:21:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 29805 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 29805-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B29805.151404244012581 (code B ref 29805); Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 29805) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Dec 2017 15:20:40 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49501 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbM-0003Gr-A1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:20:40 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:56452) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlbL-0003Gf-3R for 29805@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:20:39 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vBNFIqVY177492; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:20:32 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2017-10-26; bh=IiQkmpqDdwvAqrUe2GCA+D/EbvH2/lIsr0Uq0Q9Y4Fc=; b=WvDwRRy85vS1bREjy+ZudE3nzfRnSd9bE83Cz92CO6KGbZ9BWuoD3iWEvaatH1BTPGCK wrldopLXT5dA+CXmKKYpGwSrQtcN4K64PIgslyQQHYKrEpw8e2teyPAoEhDXMqTfUwgs ZbT5Zbi3I45MP4Eo9VunSzVE/lW12OM3RG5glw9T0Sppha4NToiSHyI87q3rT7Ly14WG COTPFExHemtQh6gk3I2dNiQTVaw3PeDuzkHFbWqkG6+fbNnMV9gwVdlNt+QWjeEuc0kF JgJJWMiONK3I6Apl0Rfgf2UBw08wrpN1noHtj+4k20drRWsmaTP4N/Hzy0lbu1L0BzWn cA== Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2f1sb2818h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:20:32 +0000 Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vBNFKWKW029288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:20:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id vBNFKTVC022710; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:20:31 GMT In-Reply-To: <5A3E14EC.3010809@gmx.at> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4627.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8753 signatures=668650 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712230211 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: 208.118.235.43 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:141428 Archived-At: > >> 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. ;-) >=20 > If we don't want to, the entire remainder of this discussion is moot. I can't speak to what you are discussing, but if "this discussion" means this bug report, then I don't think it is moot. This is the point: > > 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. > Resizing the echo area when showing a tooltip is just a special case > of resizing the minibuffer window so any reasonable discussion of the > former would have to start with the latter. I'm not sure what you're arguing (or why you are arguing). Since minibuffer and echo area share the same real estate, of course any talk of resizing that real estate can involve either minibuffer or echo area (depending whether the resizing affects input or output) - or both. But so what? This bug is not about whether or when there should or should not be resizing. It is about the doc, which can (so far) give the impression that this resizing affects this real estate even when a standalone frame is involved - which it does not, AFAIK. > >> 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'. >=20 > Which doc string does (2)? #2 was a mistake on my part. I don't know why we now have this new option. But that's not what this bug report is about. Clearly, if you decide that we should not add this option then this bug can be closed. But that question is really separate. I can't speak to it; perhaps someone else can. But if you and whoever decide to keep this new option then please look into this doc bug. That's all. As for why Emacs might want to provide such an option (note: I'm not requesting such an option): As the entry in NEWS says: to avoid truncating help text (it says "tooltip text") in the echo area. It's not clear to me, but I get the impression that you might be thinking that just because option `tooltip-use-echo-area' is obsolete tooltip/help text is no longer displayed in the echo area. That's not the case at all. I (and many others, I imagine) turn off `tooltip-mode' so that such text is shown in the echo area. It is not such display that was made obsolete; it is only option `tooltip-use-echo-area' that is obsolete. So I can understand why someone might have added this option. But as I say, I'm not arguing for or against having this new option. My point is that its doc should not let users mistakenly get the impression that this option has some effect in the case of a standalone minibuffer frame. As for whether option `resize-mini-windows' should be sufficient to cover this: I can't speak to that. Presumably someone wanted to be able to resize the echo area (output) without also resizing the minibuffer (input)?