From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gtk scrollbar: thumb too short Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:58 -0600 (CST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200303280607.AAA28306@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <20030325193739.ZGIN3924.fep01-svc.swip.net@gaffa.gaia.swipnet.se> <1048780121.14517.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200303271630.h2RGU1bT028651@rum.cs.yale.edu> <1048799271.15136.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200303272142.PAA27945@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <1048801290.15149.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1048825714.16262.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1048831766 26753 80.91.224.249 (28 Mar 2003 06:09:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 28 07:09:23 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18yn3L-0006xF-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:09:23 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18yn5Z-0008Vj-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:11:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18yn3C-0001mc-04 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:09:14 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18yn2a-0001KH-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:08:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18yn2U-0001FN-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:08:33 -0500 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18yn15-0000Py-00; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) h2S66tB04737; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:06:56 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA28306; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:58 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: otaylor@redhat.com In-reply-to: <1048825714.16262.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> (message from Owen Taylor on 27 Mar 2003 23:28:34 -0500) Original-cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se Original-cc: rms@gnu.org Original-cc: kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de Original-cc: jody@gnome.org Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:12691 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:12691 Owen Taylor wrote: Stefan Monnier seemed to think that invisible text would make computing the end scroll position of the scrollbar very hard. That implied to me that Emacs computed scrollbars based on total characters not visible characters; but I didn't research the point. In a certain sense that actually seems correct. I only claim that the actual behavior seems consistent. It is not at all clear what the ideal behavior is supposed to be. It seems to depend on personal taste. There are two main ways to "hide" text, selective display and the "invisible" text and overlay property. Both seem to behave the same way. Selective display is the most convenient to experiment with. Set scroll-conservatively to 1000 or such, so that lines come into view one by one. Take some piece of heavily indented code and do M-1 C-x $ Just start scrolling with C-n or the down-arrow key. Watch the scroll-bar. If a ... line representing invisible text comes into view then everything depends on the size of the invisible text. If it represents a large chunk of invisible code, the effect on the scrollbar is dramatic, otherwise it is negligible. In other words, it gives you an idea of the amount of actual (indented) code you are scrolling through. Bug or feature? I do not know whether there is a "correct" answer to that question. It depends on what the user is trying to do and on the user's taste and expectations. But it seems predictable. Somehow, it looks OK to me, but it is very well possible that the only reason why is that it is the (only) behavior I am used to. (I seldom get confronted with invisible text outside of Emacs.) Sincerely, Luc.