[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returns absolute coordinates

From: Jan Djärv
Subject: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returns absolute coordinates
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:07:26 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; sv-SE; rv: Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1

YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu skrev 2010-07-15 02.17:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:22:27 +0200, Jan Djärv<address@hidden>  said:

I think major motivation to use the absolute coordinate system is
to specify the frame location (OP's case), or to pass it to
external programs (the SCIM case).  "Absolute unscaled" one is more
suitable for such uses.

I would imagine that for frame positioning, absolute scaled would be the
default, as top and left frame parameters should also be absolute

That would bring us coarser precision with respect to the frame
position.  If the scale factor is 2, then we cannot place a frame to a
position whose coordinate is an odd number (in absolute unscaled).

As I said below, special functions to do that based on unscaled coordinates would be needed. But for the default scaled should be used. Placing tooltips for example is much more common than placing frames. Doing so based on scaled coordinates is no problem. The alternative, to use unscaled, would make Emacs internals everywhere have to handle two coordinate systems all the time. To knowingly introduce such an overhead on everything is madness.

I doubt the OP still wants window edges in absolute coordinates
systems, once he knows simple offsetting is not sufficient in general
(i.e., with scale factor).

If all coordinates and sizes he uses are scaled, why isn't it sufficient?

        Jan D.

reply via email to

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