From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24085: 25.1.50; `make-frame' given `top' param creates frame with ~10x smaller `top' Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <325b79e8-c40b-46f7-a89a-11f0888b0a68@default> References: <<<0bfd2e8d-9d9b-4737-a637-5175eaaf41c0@default> <57987CBA.2060405@gmx.at>>> <<<3657859c-03f1-4eca-9a78-a9be0dee6552@default>>> <<<83h9bbrqx5.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<06a3fb2a-b975-41cf-8aa3-c2cbe207057f@default>> <<838twnrngr.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1469644828 28612 80.91.229.3 (27 Jul 2016 18:40:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 24085@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 27 20:40:15 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkb-000110-LW for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:40:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48173 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTka-0002FE-Uy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkU-0002D3-GW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkR-00086k-53 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkR-00086a-1j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkQ-00025A-LI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:40:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24085 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24085-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24085.14696448017993 (code B ref 24085); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:40:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24085) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jul 2016 18:40:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39453 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkO-00024r-Rj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:40:01 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:22251) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bSTkN-00024e-82 for 24085@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:39:59 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u6RIdq9L011972 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:39:52 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6RIdph4016495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:39:52 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6RIdorK008635; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:39:51 GMT In-Reply-To: <<838twnrngr.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6744.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 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 Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:121601 Archived-At: > > > > Would someone please revert this, and let `make-frame' respect the > > > > frame parameters handed to it, in particular `top'? > > > > > > Not a chance, sorry. > > > > Huh? What's that all about? >=20 > Reverting the change will reintroduce the bug it fixed Obviously, as I indicated in my earlier message, I meant that the bug that it fixed should be fixed properly, without treading on `make-frame'. If on MS Windows you think the first Emacs frame should be positioned so that it does not overlap the task bar, then do that. But do it without affecting what `make-frame' does. > so doing that is out of the question. What _is_ in the question, then? If you are unwilling to fix the code, will you fix the doc? Will you update the doc to say that `make-frame' does not (or might not, or does not in the following cases...) respect this and that parameter (whichever parameters it does not respect)? Will you tell users in the doc that if they want (this or that part of) the PARAMETERS argument to have any effect they will need to call `set-frame-parameter' after `make-frame', to set those parameters as they expected `make-frame' would have done? IOW, PARAMETERS, or at least some of it, might have no effect, so users had better find some other way to set the frame parameters? I find your reaction here to be dismissive and overreactive, so far. Just what bug did this change seek to fix? Wasn't it only the default, initial behavior of Emacs for the initial frame? If so, how is this general change to `make-frame' the right fix for that bug? And how would it hurt for `make-frame' to at least respect an _explicit_ frame alist argument, which is, after all, optional? Why does it have such an argument, if it no longer respects it? It seems to me that a proper fix for the problem described in the bug report that this "fix" was for is to do something specific for the initial Emacs frame only - which is _anyway_ special-cased. Take some code from the existing `make-frame' and give it another name for that special case, for example. But why take over the single, general-purpose frame-creation Lisp function we have, changing its behavior to ignore parts of optional arg PARAMETERS (on one platform, no less), just to accommodate the special case of the initial frame? This makes no sense to me. And I find it hard to believe that you would not consider fixing that bug properly and restoring `make-frame' to a general-purpose function that respects whatever optional frame parameters are specified.