From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#29597: 26.0.90; line-number-display-width returns incorrect width Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:23:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1512624891.1385920.1196858744.3908725A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1512697446.3649570.1197990904.2822A9C1@webmail.messagingengine.com> <87d13qf07e.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <1512700351.3662600.1198017792.20921918@webmail.messagingengine.com> <838tedw9el.fsf@gnu.org> <831sk5w6xb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1512750249 29647 195.159.176.226 (8 Dec 2017 16:24:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Rankin , 29597@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 08 17:24:05 2017 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 1eNLRV-0007aE-5P for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 17:24:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38016 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLRc-0003vy-0q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:24:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47044) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLRV-0003vs-MK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:24:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLRS-0002ua-I7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:24:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:44059) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLRS-0002uU-EG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:24:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLRS-00031Y-8a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:24:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:24:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 29597 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 29597-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B29597.151275020611581 (code B ref 29597); Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:24:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 29597) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2017 16:23:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52740 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLQs-00030j-4t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:23:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:45737) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eNLQq-00030X-Vc for 29597@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:23:25 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 9so4123844wme.4 for <29597@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 08:23:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=2HBwF+hLPq/ZBNs1rFT37wJTO/ybyixy+XlnaWleB8Y=; b=j1F1DG7NEpHl1At75u3yNyBO5zQFKvsO8oNtRDt+wNUhqAjSVZugTR04v/owgP3aD6 zvpr3f1C3kPC/3VWrnKELkFakFfk0RmqtM19EqbAWPfknwdSBy/LNDAs/1uKaYOu30ce qUjQH6rBo5P74gbvIoJXIxd0H7AfaDdKNMiJ3mJTpXYNjHbzICAQevYq+RkUomQEMJNk VVZ+jjROZpYuSSK++7Eyve5HqMcd/xj/exlzfMC6bmiLuWrhRA63643UKBmv0XIn73Lo 3Z1qQH20xm+5vQvzy4VLTuap6ALbfmFmeOkhknv1Uiuh15NtvD0+LlILFzSEytVb8pyD S5sA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2HBwF+hLPq/ZBNs1rFT37wJTO/ybyixy+XlnaWleB8Y=; b=tW6ALW7+n6uCraR8bUGfVGTNbPmp7yUjOVvKnYjcIlHK8jA520MtaI+jBk7QaR29KG goXfBrU5yt+PEELCsnC/nDdH9fjQ/sLHsUcq4DhskpdmmzGe3zxvnZh/O6PzmtvVDDgx y+GsITj1lJjkEt9YJLNX+C9kk4UifdGaMQbxlJuhMvWZUGsGWEVhR2Bzz5q6z7DCK0qd Nx79MgBEjOY8py943wHeial0XyJ79gLYfOYRgqI1kHL+q6R1idEn0WoRYEA2ik4fSkTY lFwImb5llhSldBWYaYu1kH+luLDAsnvtxDRvKVYJ7FN0+5+yWAYanZJsmtDdssbWLf8E 0cYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJmEv/0KXopDAl33V/uyKccgLJ/qdTraAEhy3RYRMv8IcrQLNCD HffMpnQ0ELsrIEMY3qN6Fj3Xtx+5jqTPkmmOBifJQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMauZYhXXmYMlXM5jg2cK04FPTzlAMN/h3oEdXQdLuW6ogpJfR+bELa8VgyFQEmd3hLW8EdfTp02i41YWwcfBQA= X-Received: by 10.28.109.5 with SMTP id i5mr4347903wmc.20.1512750199470; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 08:23:19 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.223.151.116 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:23:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <831sk5w6xb.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 10_iWjeH5UcTggNjOr3tSeh4tPo 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:140824 Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Noam Postavsky >> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:37:09 -0500 >> Cc: Paul Rankin , 29597@debbugs.gnu.org >> >> (line-number-display-width) => 2 >> (line-number-display-width t) => the equivalent in pixels > > Actually, equivalent to what? If to 2 (not 4), then this value would > be useless, I think. And if it's equivalent to 4, then it should be > (line-number-display-columns t), right? Oh, yes, I was confused. Because packing so many conditions into the function interface is confusing (I seem to recall Dmitry raised the same point when you were introducing the function). > I don't object to such trivial wrappers, although I'd raise a brow if > I saw something like this in Emacs. It sounds too trivial to have 2 > more symbols in the name-space. But that's me. Is the symbol space really a scarce resource?