[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#4543: window-full-height-p

From: martin rudalics
Subject: bug#4543: window-full-height-p
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:41:57 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

> Why doesn't it make sense?  The computed value of new_frame_total_cols
> is used to enlarge only the frame's root window:
>   if (new_frame_total_cols != FRAME_TOTAL_COLS (f))
>     {
>       set_window_width (FRAME_ROOT_WINDOW (f), new_frame_total_cols, 2);
> And for the root window, FRAME_TOTAL_COLS is correct, I think.  The
> window configuration, however complex, does not affect the root
> window, does it?

With Emacs -Q I can evaluate

(set-window-scroll-bars nil 0 nil)

to remove the scroll bar from the *scratch* window keeping the window
size unaltered.  When I now evaluate

(scroll-bar-mode -1)

the width of the frame shrinks and with it the number of columns used
for text in the *scratch* window.  This doesn't make sense.

>> I'm not sure, however, whether text-only terminals inherently rely
>> on these calculations.  So the question I essentially ask is whether
>> the number of total columns of a frame's root-window invariantly
>> equals the width of that frame over all possible terminals.
> I think it does, yes.  In any case, the code in change_frame_size_1
> _is_ run on text-only terminals (or should I say for frames on
> text-only terminals, since we have multi-tty now).

Fine.  I wasn't entirely sure about

  dos_set_window_size (&newheight, &newwidth);

which IIUC does adjust the width value via

  *rows = ScreenRows ();

so this eventually does get related back to the frame's root window.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]