From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: Emacs inventing system documentation Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:30:47 +0200 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <3099-Fri20Feb2004193047+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> References: <87lln0ey4g.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <873c968uzv.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1077314932 18374 80.91.224.253 (20 Feb 2004 22:08:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, jbasrai@comcast.net Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 20 23:08:41 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AuIp7-0008AD-00 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:08:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AuIoB-0004SM-3H for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:07:43 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1AuInH-0002oF-29 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:06:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1AuIma-0001zT-OY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.30) id 1AuIma-0001u8-9d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:06:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.13] (helo=hector.inter.net.il) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AuEUU-0001XF-PR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:31:06 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.166]) by hector.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id AFR50601; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:30:48 +0200 (IST) Original-To: Juri Linkov X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <873c968uzv.fsf@mail.jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Fri, 19 Feb 2004 23:57:22 +0200) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:7041 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:7041 > From: Juri Linkov > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2004 23:57:22 +0200 > > This code runs before the man page is formatted and displayed, and > we don't know where the page will actually be displayed, so both > frame-width and window-width are incorrect. But still window-width > is better than frame-width, because it produces more correct results > in one situation and don't make it worse in another. ``More correct'' might not be good enough: it could be better for the situations you tried, but we cannot guarantee it is always better. That's why it is IMHO wrong to use incorrect methods. So I think we should come up with a different approach, one that guarantees that the screen width passed to `man' is the correct one. Could you please try to think about such a different solution?