From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#33230: 26.1; Soft-wrap issue in term.el with term-suppress-hard-newline Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:36:40 +0200 Message-ID: <837ehf8yd3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h8h0if4u.fsf@gmail.com> <87bm76j496.fsf@gmail.com> <5BDEB6CD.2050407@gmx.at> <5BDEC244.3040002@gmx.at> <5BEA9469.7080502@gmx.at> <83muqc99rf.fsf@gnu.org> <5BEBDDB9.20401@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1542209711 5366 195.159.176.226 (14 Nov 2018 15:35:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 33230@debbugs.gnu.org, bruno@charron.email, npostavs@gmail.com To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 14 16:35:07 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxC7-0001Gs-52 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:35:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32812 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxED-00008X-KX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:37:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDy-00007A-T8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:37:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDy-0000P8-33 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDx-0000Oy-WB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDx-000150-Sv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:37:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 33230 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: confirmed Original-Received: via spool by 33230-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B33230.15422098194142 (code B ref 33230); Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:37:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 33230) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Nov 2018 15:36:59 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52414 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDv-00014j-Fe for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:36:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46710) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDt-00014V-SD for 33230@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:36:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDm-0000AE-5C for 33230@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:36:52 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDg-0008Vl-Ae; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:36:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1166 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gMxDf-0003XI-5N; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:36:44 -0500 In-reply-to: <5BEBDDB9.20401@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:32:57 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:152384 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:32:57 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: bruno@charron.email, npostavs@gmail.com, 33230@debbugs.gnu.org > > At the end it says: > > Another issue I found that may need to be addressed to get a behavior > similar to gnome-terminal above is that the shell is not aware > (checking $COLUMS) of when the frame is resized, only when its window > is resized and there is another window on the side. > > > and (2) the ELisp > > manual explicitly says that "resizing the frame or individual windows > > do not count as configuration changes", and thus this hook shouldn't > > be run when the frame is resized. > > > > So how does the proposed change fix the problem at hand, > > By running 'window-configuration-change-hook' for frame resizes as > with Emacs 25. > > > and why do > > you want to do exactly what the ELisp manual says we don't? > > The Elisp manual doesn't represent the facts because we still run the > hook when resizing single windows. The idea behind that text was to > avoid that new code runs 'window-configuration-change-hook' to trace > window size changes because that is unreliable (not all size changes > are caught) and costly (it's often run when no sizes changed at all). > Also NEWS warned that > > *** Resizing a frame no longer runs 'window-configuration-change-hook'. > 'window-size-change-functions' should be used instead. > > and I checked known clients of 'window-configuration-change-hook' > whether they should call 'window-size-change-functions' instead. > Little did I expect to find such a client in window.el though, so this > went unnoticed. So you propose to fix something not directly related to the current bug by reverting to pre-Emacs 26 behavior, and also make NEWS and the manual consistent with the change? If so, I'm okay with doing that on the emacs-26 branch.