[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fringe frame parameters, default values

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Fringe frame parameters, default values
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:44:54 -0700 (MST)

    > I think the right solution is that the widths should be specified as
    > ratios to the "column width", not as numbers of pixels.  This would
    > fit all the constraints in a clean way.  It would also make for
    > more consistency, since most of the frame parameters for sizes
    > are specified in columns or lines, not in pixels.

    I don't really see how this is better!

It is better than the current implementation because the value
is always a number, never nil.  And the value always scales
reasonably with a change in font.

    then I will still have to adjust the fringe widths so that they occupy
    an intergral number of frames, i.e. that actual widths ratios would be
    0.75 and 1.25 -- so it is still not possible to see what the configured
    values are!

That is already true, right?  So using columns as units won't
be any improvement here, but it also won't make things any worse.

Meanwhile, if you specify fringe widths that add up to an integer, you
know they won't be adjusted, right?  This is the right solution, I

Note that when we generalize frame sizes so that they don't have to be
integral, we will probably also eliminate the requirement that the
fringe widths must add to an integer.

reply via email to

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