From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#21415: 25.0.50; Emacs Trunk -- pixelwise width/height for x-create-frame Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:37:26 +0200 Message-ID: <560E4246.1080306@gmx.at> References: <55FFD141.2030405@gmx.at> <5600F763.3020305@gmx.at> <5601211E.3090001@gmx.at> <5608E2AB.7010407@gmx.at> <560A3C87.3060802@gmx.at> <560C3090.6000902@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443778647 16228 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2015 09:37:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Keith David Bershatsky , 21415@debbugs.gnu.org To: Anders Lindgren Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 02 11:37:15 2015 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 1Zhwm8-0004YL-Ft for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:37:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58289 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhwm2-0007aJ-Nj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 05:37:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52752) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhvqv-0004Uc-83 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:38:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhvqr-00036C-To for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:38:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34059) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhvqr-000368-R7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:38:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhvqr-0006V0-Mu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:38:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:38:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 21415 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 21415-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B21415.144377505724953 (code B ref 21415); Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:38:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 21415) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2015 08:37:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51263 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhvqS-0006UP-Sw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:37:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:55148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhvqR-0006UH-0X for 21415@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:37:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [93.82.78.144] ([93.82.78.144]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LiDHj-1aUF6U0Mkt-00nMwh; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:37:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:CHXZkL2yxVvx8hUCzRFiLg4N2aftoWd3WqbS6GyNtKhnrZl50dI xDM24rVy82zU7Iiv6e0JztP7CsYdSscht7ZfRagN8DeFJMoQGvSXACATINuC7SAfxbleSnT 5J7Rz2310DkmyDHH+uCqsAZxqGx1paefPyGBSEV+2Px2kMd0CY1J/B8ew+CQ46ZURRSHjQp voqWzPc2Gf7djO/5JPfeA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:d4GL06rRYZE=:lbff9XNxZIXc74C2M/Oc+h J4WxbhELj9wtyzhd8urur2i5cX1ONDCGNqlnfxqKXyIxpssrRFwzugivBy82dumylJHeelogu Wq4qAcnC3urEAjdN4lBvzALf21UvY0/wr8CbtOb403+UYtJJiMQX5wljDUV5ZdAPH6EBO8YIt f2/Uh3f6GdkUjHdwzIg3DjEcK4mfLLzjqscMMsLHKfo1TXObYIRuvRTYf+ufZujFJhUq99Hst RRgQHsq0rEQXb+tPtnLUzcF14AbczzxXFREmiitXliaObHAzvmdaehrqXq0JqjSKIUfhhUvNi 5Yz98zJ60PKbWctw8QAXlQTDXJ12Ial8P066lcqJcDHEvCnazvY5It7vmwdwYQJ1yRBasNlJ5 X1ty1aMtQvkBA5ex+94jzPp9CwBFkai/gKnymVjGuig6pGPEMLj+OGOOajUG5xVLf0kILR5fK JVR6j+7y8d9U6Bzdk7/HpMTxLcVutfTqtKuRaamWXH91QVjN2CtW6IjkOPuz4fUCo99rcoQOj Wm79kofxl2TFlSeelxqEa2VMEbSvHXIQY5l5A6ELkm1F/uWwCIenjUiXL+MV5D/y5M+tCU13P 00Bs7B0vKnGh/0StmYlzr/cPgBrG2tUZvaFLwnkW1vYnek/LSmFirvp35ChP0VJ7CzlYGatXl Gla+BPvUDyvC7XAi5OL+CLt8l3csZ8FZY8GkRC7Lbl4g4jYZGOCFPLOnbjo5I5jL97FstlApi CGiZsWfcPaf0Dl4uMRJv666ZKRjntMqy8c8+dB2/Y+jnMzPteGDh3jWX4w5pt3TtexpCXBf5 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:107202 Archived-At: > Zooming and fullscreen are two different concepts. Zooming is a generi= c > system, and it's up to the application to decide what to do. When > initialized using the user interface, Emacs steps through full-height,= > maximized, and original size. When the frame `fullscreen' property is > updated, the correct state is set immediately. OS X is simply informed= of > the end size and placement and resized the frame using a resizing anim= ation. But is the fact that OS X has responded to our zooming request reflected in that "button" and if so in which way? > FullScreen is a totally different animal with a special sideways anima= tion, > gives the application exclusive use of the screen, and blanks out othe= r > monitors. What is the size of such a "FullScreen" screen in relation to the size of your screen? > Today, I did try a little experiment by > modifying `windowWillUseStandardFrame:' to return the full screen size= =2E > Unfortunately, using this method it doesn't seem possible to make the = frame > use the entire screen -- it appears as though the system restrict the > requested frame size to what it considers the visible area. > > The four pixels, by the way, is related to the position of the "Dock" = -- if > it is placed on the side of the screen, OS X won't use the four leftmo= st > pixels. Also, if the Dock is not in auto-hide mode, OS X will restrict= zoom > so that the dock isn't covered at all (i.e. some 20 or 30 pixels). This makes sense, more or less. > It would be relatively easy to modify the code so that setting a frame= > parameter would set the frame size without using the zoom system. Howe= ver, > it would make maximizing the frame using the user interface different = from > `toggle-frame-maximized', which might be undesirable. Agreed. > On the other hand, I > compared with another application (LightRoom). When it is maximized us= ing > the user interface, it's frame doesn't cover the entire screen (the sa= me > four pixels as in Emacs). To cover the entire screen, another command = must > be issued which cycles through maximized, maximized with hidden menu b= ar, > and normal. I'm afraid that I don't yet understand that "cycling". Do you mean that pushing that button (which I presume is the "user interface") repeatedly cycles through these three states? In that case there's still the question whether =E2=80=98toggle-frame-maximized=E2=80=99 should hide the= menu bar. BTW, you above say "full-height" and "maximized" and here you talk about "maximized" and "maximized with hidden menu bar". Which of these correlate? martin