[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font |
Date: |
Fri, 3 May 2013 13:31:24 -0700 |
> > > For example, increasing the font size should not make a
> > > maximized frame larger than the screen. We're kidding users
> > > with such behavior.
> >
> > 1. Your argument here applies to any size increase beyond
> > the screen size, not just doing that via `set-frame-font'.
> > So it is irrelevant as an argument why resizing via
> > `set-frame-font' should be an exception.
>
> It _is_ relevant, because Martin's argument applies not only to
> increasing maximized frames, but also to decreasing their size as
> well, as side effect of any change except an explicit change in frame
> dimensions.
What argument? That is the conclusion, but what is the argument supporting it?
> IOW, when the frame is maximized, only explicitly changing its height
> or width, or explicitly un-maximizing it, should
Should why? That's the question. Haven't seen an answer yet.
> ever affect the frame's size. Any other changes, such as font change or
> adding/removing scroll bars or fringes -- should
Should why?
> leave the frame at the same pixel dimensions, i.e. still maximized.
All of that just repeats the claim; it does not support it.
That is the claim for which I am asking for a supporting reason.
You have also generalized beyond just `set-frame-font' (the only exception
mentioned until now, AFAIK), BTW. Now it is apparently not just
`set-frame-font' that is the exception but any way of resizing other than
"explicitly changing its height or width, or explicitly un-maximizing it".
My question remains, in any case: What is the _reason_ why such ways of resizing
should be neutered? What is the _reason_ why "explicitly changing its height or
width, or explicitly un-maximizing it" should be the only way of changing the
size?
There might be a good reason for such a claim, but I've seen none advanced, so
far. "X because X" is no support for X: it just assumes the conclusion.
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, (continued)
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Drew Adams, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Drew Adams, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Drew Adams, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, martin rudalics, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Drew Adams, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font,
Drew Adams <=
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/04
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, martin rudalics, 2013/05/04
- bug#14326: 24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font, Drew Adams, 2013/05/04