Re: display-mm-width return value off on Windows

[Ralf Angeli]

* Jason Rumney (2006-08-19) writes:

> Ralf Angeli wrote:
>>> I provided a patch for w32fns.c the majority of developers were in
>>> favor of
>> Okay, it's been two weeks and nobody has reacted to the last message.
>>   
> I didn't react the first time because I don't think your statement above 
> was true, but it is pointless continuing the argument.

Then we have a different perception of the reactions.

> In response to the objections to your original patch (which gave 
> improved but still incorrect results on one machine, different but just 
> as incorrect results on another,

I guess, I was the only one who actually checked the results of
`display-mm-width' and `display-mm-height' with the final patch
applied.  Here they are again for reference:

                   display-mm-*   display-mm-*
        Real size  without patch  with patch
Width   285mm      370            296
Height  215mm      277            222

I'd say this is a vast improvement.  Until now nobody showed any
evidence that the patch leads to more inaccurate results on other
machines compared to the current code.

> and according to the documentation for 
> the system calls involved could likely give worse results in many 
> circumstances), you produced a patch to allow the user to fix up 
> incorrect display size/dpi settings, but others pointed out that users 
> of multiple displays could be worse off with such a patch. So have you 
> given up on that and returned to trying to get your original patch accepted?

No, I haven't given up on that.  I modified the patch for frame.el for
it to be able to cope with multiple displays and provided it in
<URL:http://mid.gmane.org/address@hidden>.  Nobody replied
to this message.  I provided that patch (again) together with the
patch for w32fns.c in
<URL:http://mid.gmane.org/address@hidden>.

-- 
Ralf