From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scrollbar size flaky on OS X Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:19:00 -0400 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112808077 29148 80.91.229.2 (6 Apr 2005 17:21:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 06 19:21:16 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJEBf-0001xA-C7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:19:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJDkn-00014v-V1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:51:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DJDjs-0000t0-JJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:50:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJDjs-0000ri-6P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:50:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DJEBg-0003mE-H0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:19:33 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A6F340003; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from asado.iro.umontreal.ca (asado.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.84]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EB84AC20F; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by asado.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 419B6E6C1F; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: David Reitter In-Reply-To: (David Reitter's message of "Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:17:00 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-4.83, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.07, BAYES_00 -4.90) X-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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:35643 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35643 >> 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. Looks like a bug indeed. Stefan