From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alex Schroeder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can someone explain this code in xterm.c? Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:16:22 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87issysa9l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5xsms78hm6.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051557419 12862 80.91.224.249 (28 Apr 2003 19:16:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 28 21:16:57 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19AE7V-0003LI-00 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:16:57 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19AEFo-0007ZQ-00 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:25:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19AE7h-0006OL-00 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:17:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19AE7N-0006IK-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:16:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19AE74-0005r7-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:16:30 -0400 Original-Received: from isp247n.hispeed.ch ([62.2.95.247] helo=smtp.hispeed.ch) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19AE6y-0005WO-00; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:16:24 -0400 Original-Received: from confusibombus.gnu.org (dclient217-162-234-20.hispeed.ch [217.162.234.20])h3SJGL4k013730; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:16:22 +0200 Original-To: rms@gnu.org Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwCAYAAABXAvmHAAACkElEQVR42s1a0bLsIAgzjv// y7kPd9pVKxKVdk6fzux2C4EAwR6QZBpcQEopIf3Fq3a52Lfh0Mjjk99zcWYBwA2ihEen9jVxfAf/ u0+Y2HQwNoVw4Dx34trRV6NSjiLPmfPt77jwiBxB/3PnZ3B2AGxzHnGu0wcBwAIAyQwZGvQhiFcy YLOFQcSB/MS82n3ec37vykNqRFTX9rVWR2U5+pZNIggll0CUOQN9BDdm1LfBmcZxIEqjL6r2JU/D galaB7Zg4jlY2ulnIx9OR4iMRl38CAFyKaA8jAxE7lNn650VKMULZ/54crqn0YQCJGQliebXkFIK hwqmGm28cgsSjz/hzRCMneQEwMjVoH3gWTtMPgIslJUV5uIluvUEkyzU+gUGQO62e9NuSdZCzNOM fDPC87iCqfE9gHinsIrSL16TPBfrYIeHzqKU90a50jCh54EcrgAUFo5ibzvebgr/I66USQ0CspQp IVSoBQK3WswDDIndIraHxoglqOjM1d044PQvu1NY0EHtqQR/XwJ+PeCs0x2dSlApZVw4MPER23PD 7JekoHxrqTRod/2Gx5nhx5dfAJhqPt7tDMIZxNN/7lOIaparPn7ZQ88drlORC2eLWXowxIq4gHTh VN1BSmsHoxYAbPWDTuGQuuecS+aYQUYpfr0YqPQOuuUk5tApK077+2xfOYP+XyWEIwPcE49lvT9N y2+wU2KylGGp4yxlALcm6fSlmgk62yfSsfNunDl5d6W91MBUoZw679YAJoMMkhijuXdFOL+khaL2 s+g3zy4APQuQvSc/BNAYnkl6E8ivYtEHJXa1dihE3zgnKMdNgN8DiIwgA17NykUMvFDQ+LALvXXI BuBLAHv/DvBmc/0HzR03PqXmLcQAAAAASUVORK5CYII= In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:38:35 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13517 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13517 Richard Stallman writes: > This setting is used in the calculation of the total width of the > frame window (in macro CHAR_TO_PIXEL_WIDTH), but in other parts of the > code, the width of the scroll bar _area_ is always calculated as the > number of scroll bar colums multiplied by the font width (canonical x > unit). > > I think that in some cases the actual display of the scroll bar is > determined by the number of columns. You can specify a non-integral > width, but it leaves the excess blank. > > I don't remember the reason it is done this way, but I do remember > there was one. Perhaps because we want scroll-bars to always look the same even if the frame-width is not a multiple of of the column-width. This happens in window managers that have only one maximized window such as ratpoison. You cannot change the width of frames under such a window manager, therefore you can either shrink or expand the scroll-bars, or you can leave some space. This is just a guess in the dark because I happen to use the ratpoison window manager. Alex. -- http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/alex.pl