From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Reitter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scrollbar size flaky on OS X (was: Aquamacs distro for OS X like behavior) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:17:00 +0100 Message-ID: References: <7ca1709813602da58a139cee58fb4c63@gmail.com> <3b9c4e2f33d37fed55f640dcafbc8d65@gmail.com> <87is31i8jq.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <0ba853825b580f74347416c2c0b4a169@gmail.com> <87vf70ausz.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112804402 18589 80.91.229.2 (6 Apr 2005 16:20:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 06 18:20:00 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJDEd-0000oh-I3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:18:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJCnl-0001EO-4L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:50:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DJCm6-0000kU-Hj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:49:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJCm5-0000jc-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:49:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [64.233.184.200] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DJDDl-0006G2-9U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:17:37 -0400 Original-Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 57so216218wri for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=T7phFm892tA4XVZkdRhTDhBht/idw3cQwyxo/C9vPkO24lH7LbebzKUVkMtrOVnQ1rltiHN5pAYcHrkjdnH6exVZJzNG6J2Vf/ac6JsAPY/eWcekR5mXamC3fxnxaQJiVMHOfAmCoy8Gi+ixPxHSTm9AWjpnX+6lPLgrvCiphvk= Original-Received: by 10.54.32.28 with SMTP id f28mr734689wrf; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from ?129.215.110.120? ([129.215.110.120]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id d75sm1364894wra.2005.04.06.09.17.09; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87vf70ausz.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Original-To: Stefan Monnier X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) 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:35639 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35639 Addendum: > That's exactly what it represent: the ratio slider/total is the same > as the > ratio shownchars/buffercharsize. But depending on where you are in the > buffer the window will not always show the same number of chars, so > the size > of the slider changes accordingly. Not sure if that gets updated correctly. Take a look at the three screenshots I put up here: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/dreitter/scrollbar-issue/ You'll see some random document in a buffer. Screenshots 1 and 2 show different parts of the document, and you see that the slider has a totally different size. To me as a user, it looks like we're seeing about the same amount of the buffer in the window. So why does the slider have a different size? If I play around (scroll back and forth) a little more, you can see what happens - screenshot 3 shows the same portion of the buffer as in 2, but this time with a very small slider. According to your explanation and looking at the size of the buffer, screenshots 1 and 3 are correct, but 2 is not. -- Dave