From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: eval, load and -l Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:37:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87oa6cyu3m.fsf@gmx.net> References: <871t381fca.fsf@gmx.net> <83wpl0nnmg.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467735023 1215 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2016 16:10:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 05 18:10:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSvM-0007sX-4t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:10:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56067 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSvI-0003Td-3Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:10:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSPN-0004Lx-Kt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:37:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSPI-0003GL-Dh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:37:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:60240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKSPI-0003GG-3r; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:37:04 -0400 Original-Received: from rosalinde ([89.245.65.12]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LjJCt-1brbIP2nmx-00dWhc; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:37:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83wpl0nnmg.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:52:23 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BgVmxRqGic3rktF3oiGnlZ/lC9rKh2KBBYnwIHE/wb5AMDb9SHO L34u53aE3HKxK8aaEe4XmXEM219zX3flrlMM6giR2sLt0LFZzGqxkYYyqwWU+pTRpCd1kwz odWkE/TAt1NcglwUxSZBUGXaPvLJcJJdewMqe95cRzfiz6lhArunxYaBOE60C65hpicEuIa 3PTLvxjULr1v2fMloYd3Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:zl4DRxxvWvk=:i0EYw83HKTgjO72EvSilfM gDGx/Ma7i9vBiuCPRzAV3/xIZ+eBxNoHcDO9PlaN1I2nQhLbL2OpOgOJ0TWvncQEQfyOJfOXv LmsNDfIwwFMF71JYP4i78RfZuEtRpd/EGEN+pZQqNL+CqnT4YbAufQGC1eNxQyNxo1qS1pYL8 CY0yWVqNuH6EyQXb2l/88OAyZruhKUJ8yMFwoHGr7W5gyYiDoE1YtU5QzxJtntHLf4IEdNp8m oxQFuhBKxQ56RTG3I6MC8Zl2z217QLCsEFQbbPY0k+JznGm6fTtMGEUEVAFKFR5V2Z35zZ8kB U8+0Y+edHJqBVLge3ztecRXLVz6GCxHCWlcJXYQHQhevNWWQ+6kbCcRZAwulsLY8E7D8IeQzp xTWDmfj6kbtLFJ3Sct2k9QKsD4i2rH5HMtiftJYqiVCsSHDdYfKRIQEBGJJIrV+SdNV8TzVwf gxNktPKNE5yzHXMlym0fE8xB7d/ko8FM1vnTXH43Bu2J9Iq7Pe5C9GJWZTvbFbPvPCTsl5sIs 55tf8G8idCFDgLzAMjNsV/m5JHdTTt+OrBFzCxWcAoLnX7zExZupnr17zISVTmcxwh35eD4v7 eQHw/pYJUIhh1hHmYcPiugZ00S0Kj5P8waIquNIt86aAVBsRKukHazmXGVT9kgoccQ7k3FzTd qIW0Ibybp/MxsreGsuMK4s361dQPpemxZdPgh8L3ArGp1fTkyWyjJUsanw9RK+JwioiUytmfK U12XMdmrDTMAnYTMfFBxSksqnHzsaxOyIjJM1n/TC/HxAUfDO2P0N8vfu4PGACg7ZXffZ0SI X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205182 Archived-At: On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:52:23 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Stephen Berman >> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:42:13 +0200 >> >> If I understand the Emacs and Lisp reference manuals correctly, I expect >> that, when I have a file foo.el containing Lisp code, the following >> procedures should produce the same results: >> >> 1. emacs -Q >> C-x C-f foo.el RET >> M-x eval-buffer RET >> >> 2. emacs -Q >> M-x load-file RET foo.el RET >> >> 3. emacs -Q -l foo.el > > No, item 3 will always be different from the other two. > >> But I have code where the result of doing 1 or 2 differs from the result >> of doing 3. [...] >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-07/msg00154.html >> >> As I noted there, when I evaluate the code in a running Emacs session, >> i.e. as in 1 or 2, I see frame-widening; but when I load the code by >> doing 3, there is no frame-widening. Is this difference expected > > Yes, at least in principle. > >> and if so could someone point me to the relevant documentation or >> part of the code that makes the difference? > > The order of things done during startup is documented in "Startup > Summary" in the ELisp manual. The --load command-line argument is > processed in item 21, and then item 26 we recompute frame and window > parameters and other related settings. After Martin's reply to the above-referenced post made it clear that the issue is related to the Gtk+ menu bar, it occurred to me that the difference between 1/2 and 3 may be that with -l, the file is loaded before the menu bar is created, which would account for why there is no frame-widening in that case. However, according to the Info node you cite, the menu bar is created at step 9, well before -l is processed. Can the recomputing in step 26 (or 27?) change the menu bar? Yet step 26 only refers to modifications specified in the init files, which doesn't seem relevant to this case. Hmm. Steve Berman