Hi!


> The original change is difficult to read as it conflates the NSTRACE code
> (a lot) with the more meaningful change.
>

Unfortunately, I enhanced and used the trace system while rewriting the
zoom system, so it would have been very hard to do separate commits.



> What I find problematic is that you’re trying to micro-manage the position
> and size of the frame when the system provides high-level functions such as
> [NSScreen visibleFrame] that essentially tell you what is available.  The
> comment with that commit suggests that you’re going over the Dock (when
> it’s not hidden), and if that is indeed the case, that would be a mistake.


Oh, it's quite the opposite. When the dock is visible, Emacs respect
[NSScreen visibleFrame]. (Before the last commit, it didn't -- which caused
the dock to overlap the Emacs frame.)

However, when the dock is hidden, Emacs use the full height and width of
the screen.



> I would argue that one shouldn’t draw into a space the system considers
> unsafe.
>

I agree that you have a point there. I'm open to reverting this change (or
adding a variable controlling it) -- if people feel strongly about this.
Personally, it feels odd not to use the full screen, though. (Of course, a
user would still be able create a frame covering the entire screen using
`set-frame-size' et.c., or use a package like my `multicolumn'.)

Before I rewrote the zoom system, I looked around and checked how other
applications worked. Many applications respect the four pixels reserved for
the hidden dock, but far from all. One application that use a normal
window, but still use the entire screen is Lightroom from Adobe, so I
thought that we would be in good company.


Anyway, I really appreciate that you take time to review the OS X-related
changes!

Sincerely,
    Anders




> DR
>
>
> [1]
> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/WinPanel/Tasks/SizingPlacingWindows.html
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Anders Lindgren <andlind@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > The change to make `toggle-frame-maximized' cover the entire screen
> (when the dock was hidden) was done much earlier, in 2015-10-23 (see link
> to commit below), after a discussion that started in bug 21415 (see link).
> At the time, everybody involved in the discussion thought that it was a
> good idea for Emacs to cover the full height of the screen, when the dock
> was hidden.
> >
> > When the pretest was released, a user reported that the code didn't work
> properly when the dock was visible. Effectively, the dock would cover parts
> of Emacs. The commit you referred to is a fix for that problem.
> >
> > When investigating how an application could check if the dock was
> hidden, it turned out that there is no standard API for this, but the
> normal way this is checked is to compare the result of [screen frame] (i.e.
> the size of a display) with [screen visibleFrame] (i.e. the size, excluding
> the parts occupied by the OS). The OS reserves four pixels at the edge
> where a hidden dock resides, my code use six as a break-off value in case
> this is changed in future OS versions.
> >
> > I don't consider this a big change -- the fact that the change is 50
> lines is that I prefer a style where each logical step is isolated, well
> documented, and there is a natural place for trace output. In this case I
> decided to represent the margins using a new struct, and place the margin
> calculation into two functions `ns_screen_margins' and
> `ns_screen_margins_ignoring_hidden_dock'. Of course, I could easily have
> written the code in a very condensed manner, inlining all calculations, but
> that wouldn't have been maintainable.
> >
> > This is the original change:
> >
> >
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?h=emacs-25&id=ba24d35a3e82cdeba4be5bd794f7f48bbfa5498e
> >
> > Discussion:
> >
> >     http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21415
> >
> >     -- Anders Lindgren
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:59 AM, David Reitter <david.reitter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Anders,
> >
> > I appreciate your work on the NS/OSX port.
> > Reviewing a recent change, I can’t help but wonder:  Do we really need
> 50 lines of a hack to counteract design decisions made at the system level?
> >
> > If [NSScreen visibleFrame] tells us not to occupy certain space on the
> screen - four pixels where the Dock is hidden - then that’s a standard that
> all applications should adhere to.  It’s probably done for a reason (such
> as being able to un-hide the Dock and to grab the lower horizontal edge of
> the window for resizing).
> >
> > ns_screen_margins_ignoring_hidden_dock is, excuse my bluntness, ugly as
> it hardcodes some numbers that can change any time with a new OS version.
> It’s a burden for future maintenance.
> >
> > If this is what #22988 really was about, then it’s not a bug and we
> shouldn’t mess with it.  Also not in 25.1.
> >
> > If I’m wrong, please excuse me.  Could you explain if there is some
> deeper reasoning that I’m missing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > > Author: Anders Lindgren <andlind@gmail.com>
> > > Date:   Tue Mar 22 20:18:33 2016 +0100
> > >
> > >     Make `toggle-frame-maximized' respect the dock on OS X (bug#22988).
> > >
> > >     * src/nsterm.m (ns_screen_margins): New function.
> > >     (ns_screen_margins_ignoring_hidden_dock): New function.
> > >     (ns_menu_bar_height): Reimplement in terms of `ns_screen_margins'.
> > >     ([EmacsWindow zoom:]): Take all screen margins (except those
> > >     originating from a hidden dock) into account.
> > >
> >
>
>