Re: Avoiding raising minibuffer?

Re: Avoiding raising minibuffer?

[Elena]

On Dec 9, 3:55 pm, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >> Maybe the problem is that all windows can only take sizes that are
> >> multiples of the base text size, so it may look like "2 lines, one of
> >> them empty" while in reality it's just a single line that's slightly
> >> taller than the base text line (because of some face that changes the
> >> font used for that text) so Emacs has to add a whole extra line which
> >> will be mostly (but not completely) empty.
> > Right!  It was a bold face which caused the minibuffer to grow (e.g.:
> > Eldoc bold-ifing current function argument).  Before reading your
> > explanation I couldn't notice it.
>
> You might want to report it as a (minor) bug: bold should not make the
> text higher, IMHO,
>
>         Stefan

Oh, it's not a bug.  I'm using a bitmap font which lacks a bold
version, thus it is "boldified" by the system, resulting in a larger
font.  I've checked with another font.

Re: Avoiding raising minibuffer?

[Stephen Berman]

On Dec 9, 3:55 pm, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >> Maybe the problem is that all windows can only take sizes that are
> >> multiples of the base text size, so it may look like "2 lines, one of
> >> them empty" while in reality it's just a single line that's slightly
> >> taller than the base text line (because of some face that changes the
> >> font used for that text) so Emacs has to add a whole extra line which
> >> will be mostly (but not completely) empty.
> > Right!  It was a bold face which caused the minibuffer to grow (e.g.:
> > Eldoc bold-ifing current function argument).  Before reading your
> > explanation I couldn't notice it.
>
> You might want to report it as a (minor) bug: bold should not make the
> text higher, IMHO,

This problem is already in the bugtracker, bug#6192, which remains open.
Admittedly, that report is titled "eldoc-mode: unexpected recentering",
and the bold face problem only came out in the course of the discussion
(cf. your summary at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2010-05/msg00368.html),
so it is probably indeed worth filing a separate report about it.

Steve Berman