bug#10127: 24.0.91; wrong window width calc for `C-u C-x =' when *Help* in separate frame

[Drew Adams]

>>> I agree that this command should be fixed for the use
>>> case when the window width is very different from the
>>> default one.  I just don't think the direction you
>>> propose for the solution is the right one.

I don't have any problem with your picking a different solution, as I said.  No
offense taken - no problem.  On the contrary - the better the solution, the
better.  I have no problem with right-aligned field headers, if that can be made
to work correctly (no bug).

>> Sorry to have proposed simple ways to fix the bug,
>> which don't stand up to your quality standard.  And I
>> am delighted to hear that you have a higher standard.
>> Looking forward to a great fix.  Thx.
> 
> You just can't miss an opportunity to offend, can you?

Please stop the ad hominem attack.  I meant no offense.

I really am delighted that you want to fix this in the best way possible.  My
suggestions for fixing it were only that: suggestions.  I have no problem if you
ignore them, as I said.  My only concern is that the bug be fixed, not how the
fix is implemented.

I tried to help by giving reasons why I think it might not be necessary to
figure out the window width and right-align the field headings.  I tried to
respond to your claim that such complicated fiddling is necessary because
variable chars and fonts are involved.

For that, I tried to show that a simple description list can work with
variable-size chars and variable-pitch fonts.  I tried to show that the manuals
can in general deal with arbitrary chars and fonts in their equivalent of
description lists.  I tried to point out that the WWW commonly uses simple
description lists with variable chars and fonts, and without any need for
window-width calculation or right alignment.

I think the problem might be simpler than you think.  You apparently think it is
harder than I think.  Fair enough.

I told you why I think it can be simplified.  You told me why you think it's
inherently hard: variable chars and fonts.  I answered that argument - the only
one you gave, AFAICT.

But you did not respond to any of my arguments or point out why ordinary
handling of description lists would not be sufficient here.  Instead of
technical discussion and argument, your only reply was a personal attack.

Before that, you lambasted me for not "understanding the underlying the problems
and the current solutions".  Fair enough, if true.  But you haven't presented
any of those problems, beyond saying that we need to support variable chars and
fonts.

I responded to that, the only argument you gave in favor of needing a
complicated solution.  Where's the beef?  What are the underlying problems I
don't understand?

It's true that I don't really need to understand the problems or try to suggest
something that I hope might help.  My role in reporting the bug is done, and I'm
glad you agree that it needs to be fixed.

Based on your understanding, you seem bent on a harder, but perhaps better,
solution than I had in mind.  I'm OK with that - it's your call.  My suggestions
of a simpler approach were only intended to help.