From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: [Fwd: Frame Height Different for Default Frame and AdditionalFrames] Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:45:18 -0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199652347 29676 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2008 20:45:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 20:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , jan.h.d@swipnet.se, bob@rattlesnake.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stefan Monnier" , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 06 21:46:08 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JBcNf-0001cd-Cd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:46:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBcNI-000543-Gs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBcND-00051j-Nm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:35 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBcNC-0004z6-0G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBcNB-0004yw-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:33 -0500 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JBcN7-00087e-U5; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:45:30 -0500 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m06KjJOf021399; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:45:19 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id m06KjIVn015615; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:45:18 -0700 Original-Received: from 141.144.88.62 by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3479954231199652315; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:45:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Importance: Normal X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:86389 Archived-At: > > Did we already settle on a "right" way to do this? Robert > > expressed the desire to keep the number of text lines invariant. > > ISTR others wanted the size of the frame on the screen stay > > invariant. > > > Ideally, the tool bar ought to work like the menu bar: > > turning it on or off should not affect the height of the text area. > > Well, in my world, the The Right Thing is to not change the size of the > frame unless explicitly requested, so adding a toolbar or menubar should > reduce the amount of text displayed. > > But clearly in other worlds, the convention is different (e.g. macosx > users probably expect the toolbar to change the size of the whole frame). That's what I said too: It is likely that there are different preferences for this based on different uses of frames. We should have a user option for this: The right approach to this is to provide a user option for it. There is no sense arguing over which frame-size treatment is best in this regard