From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: How to restore the layout? Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:06:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <51C5AA68.4000204@alice.it> <51C9C790.3020407@gmx.at> <51CA0D4C.7080204@alice.it> <51CC3E42.7020409@alice.it> <51CC4CC1.3030202@alice.it> <51CC8403.1030009@gmx.at> <51CCA56A.8000508@gmx.at> <51CD49CF.1090103@gmx.at> <51CD5489.10902@g> <2FB4C583-960C-4DA8-8B2E-29DF8D96770E@swipnet.se> <83a9maflnx.fsf@gnu.org> <51CD97C5.6030000@gmx> <51CD97C5.6030000@gmx.at> <83wqpee0zc.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372432065 12804 80.91.229.3 (28 Jun 2013 15:07:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stephen Berman , Angelo Graziosi , Emacs developers , martin rudalics , Stefan Monnier , jan.h.d@swipnet.se, Jambunathan K To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 28 17:07:45 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1UsaH2-0006LM-Up for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:07:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51747 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsaH2-0003jG-GR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54992) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsaGv-0003iQ-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:07:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsaGt-0003Cr-UR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:07:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]:45388) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UsaGo-0003BI-G9; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:07:30 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 9so4251289iec.19 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:07:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Z4qwcSJPr4USXFd0koWvCnKxmihadcCFbK/NeLD2Arw=; b=t6JHoaoK9xKQyW0RFDd/nBN37aF+6xLeh3dHmvajDDZIlnkJjgudcste/QoOrOJAfE zsbV5TMvFHg8CwTbdAORGgWSgVBQL0LkbJMvT8IvcL7GeSSLrtqy8bKSSUu13heGz5oW P6gOMG2TTFowG55OmVVU994Z75U2oFbPo/MCP84myMVVz557NPRtvsZHXyCqPxNWz1a4 CnvGqvtuSUKmBa8oYOe42kS/gKE5w5q/C5Lfdu7nS0TbwF4SR5MRwgvegJtS1hiIBWLB ix43lqeItop1wcOHxxFCJG4/iy56IQ9a8p+4ziK/8C5SxuD2kAnX73RLN+Ej+WNNuz3l Ux3g== X-Received: by 10.50.77.80 with SMTP id q16mr4356457igw.3.1372432049984; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.64.126.161 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83wqpee0zc.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:161225 Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> This would mean that a maximized frame occupies the entire screen after >> it has been demaximized. > > Sorry, I cannot parse this. If the frame is maximized, it _should_ > occupy the entire screen. If it is not, then where's the problem? Read again: "after it has been demaximized". You start with a 80x35 frame, maximize (let's say, 250x50 is the max size), save, restore. The frame is now 250x50 maximized, and 250x50 de-maximized. That's ugly. If we cannot get back to 80x35, at the very least let's get default width/height. > Are we still talking about how frames will look after desktop-read > does its thing? Yes. J