From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7296: display-pixel-height not enough Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:12:14 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83hbg66vt4.fsf@gnu.org> <83d3qt77lj.fsf@gnu.org> <4CCA9E5D.5060002@swipnet.se> <838w1h6zbp.fsf@gnu.org> <4CCAC90B.4070800@swipnet.se> <4CCB2713.5070104@swipnet.se> <4CCBC930.5060705@swipnet.se> <4CCE6FE6.8020407@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288608512 3066 80.91.229.12 (1 Nov 2010 10:48:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 01 11:48:28 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrvy-0008JM-FP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:48:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48244 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCrvl-0007cS-8y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:48:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52753 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCrvM-0007La-0m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:47:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrrC-0001XB-FC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:43:19 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37882) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrrC-0001X7-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:43:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrK1-0001lc-NH; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:09:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lennart Borgman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:09:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.12886061056781 (code B ref -1); Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:09:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Nov 2010 10:08:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrJR-0001lK-4q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:08:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrJP-0001lF-8U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:08:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrNZ-0002yc-K6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:53584) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrNZ-0002yR-Gn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:12:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35847 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCrNX-0000dI-A7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:12:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrNW-0002xJ-4I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:12:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:60272) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCrNW-0002wv-25; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:12:38 -0400 Original-Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so3619348vws.0 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:12:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Os5uxrkySiN1dRznQ9Oq53tItsruiW5JhE18HPTHO8w=; b=rSArYOWJMO1UzgHwEgr0jfgxpSA5n0NU3vpqStqRSNY6Erx1OF2NjszFe0l3X6xCzs 3Do29bxKVeP1Vs5fIztK5HqX0fhnXzTZNW3EA84sHYTsyXuBmHQaa548evxbxo+Q/rf/ xNjl8etKz359MMrpXWaYPs5Q6NFMsWlZwLwto= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=OJN1KMoPmH8yTy/gWonp6vb/DLAj7Qd6XVStE/7mph5UawkTt2JVPGqYziaVDqFJov 2+LA068ReyvYqj+Ew2bmYjWKDiCuH+edP9yV7ditU/TCXI+qezkeOIOpNQ4pnhG46kUv 0t9xtsJCklgQO4jsKDsaLcXoadlw15t0qc7DI= Original-Received: by 10.224.135.151 with SMTP id n23mr7548643qat.303.1288606356245; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.229.224.199 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 03:12:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CCE6FE6.8020407@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:09:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:41332 Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Jason Rumney wrote: > On 01/11/2010 09:26, Lennart Borgman wrote: >> >> In what way can the working display area size in pixels be >> incompatible? And why is using the current total display area size >> better (and more compatible)? >> > > I recall some years ago seeing some lisp code that wanted to calculate the > real dpi of the display, as opposed to what is reported by the system (which > can be influenced by user settings for font size, or in some cases hardcoded > to 72, 96 or other common values). > > The change you are proposing would be incompatible with that way of using > display-pixel-height. Why would it be incompatible?