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: Minimum frame size in Windows Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:14:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165961714 31200 80.91.229.10 (12 Dec 2006 22:15:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 12 23:15:13 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GuFtz-00025j-8k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:15:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GuFty-0007Ea-Ls for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:15:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GuFtZ-00079e-M8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:42 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GuFtW-00074r-5H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GuFtV-00074H-Kf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [64.233.182.189] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GuFtT-0006ja-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:37 -0500 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d4so353068nfe for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:14:34 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EoHIr8E21/c60Iu9TZaXFBrPq+JRo4IJdBHeYNhwi/HQ8UGyYLNCm4xIKijPwV/g30rb+V5M1xEM02l6oDkvfTEc/OfYxphKusx6cVAJyJUKU4dVblltIVPA2uWudykMhVUXooyfBvciQGKH2+zZ8pkTKaUm8USsRL2cKvprGJQ= Original-Received: by 10.82.153.5 with SMTP id a5mr17630bue.1165961674406; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:14:34 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.82.146.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:14:34 -0800 (PST) Original-To: "Drew Adams" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:63654 Archived-At: On 12/12/06, Drew Adams wrote: > My point was that you spoke of "size", not "height", and I naturally assumed that you meant width as well as height. I mean it. > You said that you wanted to avoid users resizing the frame to a > fraction of the (size of the) "window caption". No, I *didn't*. I talked about respecting the tracking size, and then I put the current behavior as an example of the result of not respecting it. I've never said: "let's force the frame to be no smaller than the caption, or the caption's title." I've said (quite a few times already): "let's force the frame to respect the tracking size". > in particular, the width of the window caption. I get the impression you interpret "window caption" as the title text of the window. I'm referring to the UI element consisting of an small icon, a title (totally or partially visible) and minimize, maximize and close buttons (in the window style used by Emacs). > I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you won't change > the minimum width or that the new minimum width ("size") would > depend on the current window caption? I don't want a frame with > a long title to have a different minimum width from one with a > short title. The length of the text in the caption is irrelevant for tracking size purposes. > Dunno. What is the purpose of prohibiting it, beyond ugliness? Consistency with other Windows apps. Pick a corner of your Explorer or Firefox window, and drag it to reduce the window. You'll hit a wall. Bingo! Welcome to the tracking size limit. > Bof. Please elaborate, if it's really important. Consistency is important. It can be skipped, if there's a reason. > Apparently not in Emacs - your screenshot shows that. No, my screenshot shows a bug. Read the code. In my patch I removed lines that specifically talk about *respecting* the tracking size. The current code does not intend to be agnostic respect to the frame size; it does quite a few computations with it. Why aren't you campaigning against the full-lines limitation? That Emacs currently allows a window of half a caption's height is a bug. > You already did that yourself with Emacs on Windows, to create > the screenshot. No, I grabbed one corner of the Emacs window (frame) and dragged it (on an unpatched Emacs, of course) till it stopped. > I don't pretend to do anything; I'm not suggesting changing > anything. You are. You pretend to keep a bug for some future, hypothetical use of the bug as a feature. > What's wrong with letting a user do what you did with your > frame? What does it hurt? Consistency of UI. > No, and I never said it did. Why do you say "smaller"? Because that, with the full caption instead of a fragment of it, it's the default tracking size! And you're insistent of letting the user create frames past down that limit! > My point in mentioning my code was that if an application wants > to impose a size limit, it can do so, possibly under user > control, in Lisp. I don't know how you could, from lisp, create a frame smaller than that. > You haven't given any reason to hard-code a larger size in C. If you would have taken a look at my code you'd seen there's no hardcoded limit. GetSystemMetrics() returns the system defaults. > If you had said from the beginning that you just wanted to show > the full _height_ of the title bar, I wouldn't have replied at > all. Frankly, I get the impression you jumped to fight my patch without even taking the time to understand what was I proposing and what was I trying to fix. /L/e/k/t/u