[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Minimum frame size in Windows

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Minimum frame size in Windows
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:14:34 +0100

On 12/12/06, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:

My point was that you spoke of "size", not "height", and I naturally assumed 
that you meant width as well as height.

I mean it.

You said that you wanted to avoid users resizing the frame to a
fraction of the (size of the) "window caption".

No, I *didn't*. I talked about respecting the tracking size, and then
I put the current behavior as an example of the result of not
respecting it. I've never said: "let's force the frame to be no
smaller than the caption, or the caption's title." I've said (quite a
few times already): "let's force the frame to respect the tracking

in particular, the width of the window caption.

I get the impression you interpret "window caption" as the title text
of the window. I'm referring to the UI element consisting of an small
icon, a title (totally or partially visible) and minimize, maximize
and close buttons (in the window style used by Emacs).

I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you won't change
the minimum width or that the new minimum width ("size") would
depend on the current window caption? I don't want a frame with
a long title to have a different minimum width from one with a
short title.

The length of the text in the caption is irrelevant for tracking size purposes.

Dunno. What is the purpose of prohibiting it, beyond ugliness?

Consistency with other Windows apps. Pick a corner of your Explorer or
Firefox window, and drag it to reduce the window. You'll hit a wall.
Bingo! Welcome to the tracking size limit.

Bof. Please elaborate, if it's really important.

Consistency is important. It can be skipped, if there's a reason.

Apparently not in Emacs - your screenshot shows that.

No, my screenshot shows a bug. Read the code. In my patch I removed
lines that specifically talk about *respecting* the tracking size.

The current code does not intend to be agnostic respect to the frame
size; it does quite a few computations with it. Why aren't you
campaigning against the full-lines limitation? That Emacs currently
allows a window of half a caption's height is a bug.

You already did that yourself with Emacs on Windows, to create
the screenshot.

No, I grabbed one corner of the Emacs window (frame) and dragged it
(on an unpatched Emacs, of course) till it stopped.

I don't pretend to do anything; I'm not suggesting changing
anything. You are.

You pretend to keep a bug for some future, hypothetical use of the bug
as a feature.

What's wrong with letting a user do what you did with your
frame? What does it hurt?

Consistency of UI.

No, and I never said it did. Why do you say "smaller"?

Because that, with the full caption instead of a fragment of it, it's
the default tracking size! And you're insistent of letting the user
create frames past down that limit!

My point in mentioning my code was that if an application wants
to impose a size limit, it can do so, possibly under user
control, in Lisp.

I don't know how you could, from lisp, create a frame smaller than that.

You haven't given any reason to hard-code a larger size in C.

If you would have taken a look at my code you'd seen there's no
hardcoded limit. GetSystemMetrics() returns the system defaults.

If you had said from the beginning that you just wanted to show > the full 
_height_ of the title bar, I wouldn't have replied at

Frankly, I get the impression you jumped to fight my patch without
even taking the time to understand what was I proposing and what was I
trying to fix.


reply via email to

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