[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22105: 25.1.50; REGRESSION - `modify-frame-parameters'
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
bug#22105: 25.1.50; REGRESSION - `modify-frame-parameters' |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:17:39 +0100 |
> My code restores a set of frame parameters, but that behavior is
> broken, it seems, because that particular call to
> `modify-frame-parameters' has _no effect_.
What are the arguments of "that particular call"?
> It's not just that the frame height is changed by the height of
> a menu-bar or not, depending on the option value.
>
> The height is not changed _at all_ by that call, if I don't tweak
> the option, and it should be changed a _lot_ (assuming you resized
> the unthumbified frame to reduce the height a lot).
When I tried your functions the height changed considerably here. But
every large frame was higher than its predecessor by the height of the
menu bar.
> The `height' parameter that is being restored is apparently ignored.
> My guess is that all of the parameters are being ignored - that
> particular call to `modify-frame-parameters' appears to be a no-op.
> That doesn't seem to follow what the option should do, regardless
> of the option value.
Are your sure that all arguments are ignored?
> And if you step through the debugger then it _has_ its intended
> effect - the `modify-frame-parameters' call is not ignored - it
> restores all of the parameters passed to it (including `height').
That's an interesting aspect. Maybe you could try to simulate the
debugger's behavior by inserting a ‘sit-for’ wherever it produces the
intended effect. Then we could "nail down" the critical section that
produces the unintended behavior.
> So I cannot think that this bug is fixed (or not a bug), but I
> don't really understand all that is involved, and I will play
> some more with that user option - when I get a chance.
>
> I hope that you will investigate, following my recipe, why
> that `modify-frame-parameters' call now has no effect unless
> you step through the debugger. But I can at least confirm that
> the problem does indeed seem to be brought on by the code that
> implements that option.
I don't think the option itself is related to the problem you see. It's
rather the behavior when the option is not chosen.
martin