Re: x-display-pixel-width/height inconsistency

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 21.03.2013 5:51, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu wrote:
> First, thanks for many experiments.

No problem. Your latest patch has two typos:

w32fns.c: In function `Fx_display_mm_height':
w32fns.c:4737: error: `dc' undeclared (first use in this function)
w32fns.c:4737: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
w32fns.c:4737: error: for each function it appears in.)
w32fns.c: In function `Fx_display_mm_width':
w32fns.c:4755: error: `dc' undeclared (first use in this function)

With them fixed, the behavior seems to be right:

ELISP> (x-display-pixel-height)
1200
ELISP> (x-display-pixel-width)
3200
ELISP> (display-mm-height)
423
ELISP> (display-mm-width)
1128

That's the correct values for the bounding box. At least, the first two.

> I understand users want to know the size of each monitor rather than
> the total size.  But that does not justify changing existing common
> functions in an inconsistent and ad hoc way and making them
> platform-specific unnecessarily.  If such functionality is necessary,
> it should be provided in a platform-independent and consistent way.

Of course. I was just asking why you picked this specific behavior to 
make consistent across platforms.

If the existing X11 behavior is actually in use somewhere, then that 
makes sense, of course.