bug#24085: 25.1.50; `make-frame' given `top' param creates frame with ~10x smaller `top'

[Drew Adams]

> > I think (hope) you are saying that there is no good argument for
> > not respecting PARAMETERS, but because of the previous, low-level fix,
> > that's unfortunately where we are today.  In that case, let's please
> > try to do better.  If `set-frame-parameter' can in a sense "override"
> > or work around that low-level dictation of frame positioning, then
> > I imagine it should be possible for `make-frame' to do the same.
> 
> The problem is not only technical, it's also a problem of our intent.
> Do we _want_ to let frames have their echo area obscured?

I certainly do.  I have commands that rely on it, including commands
that incrementally move frames around (e.g., holding a key pressed moves
a frame right, left, up, or down, incrementally), and they wrap around
the display or from one monitor to another.

And a frame does not necessarily even have an echo area. None of my
frames do, apart from my standalone minibuffer frame.

Basic Emacs functions should not be DWIM.  A user or code should
definitely be able to position a frame anywhere.  Similarly, we have
the ability to make frames invisible.  Would you take that away, using
as argument that a user cannot see the echo area on such a frame?

> If not, then the fact that set-frame-parameter allows that would be
> a bug that needs to be fixed.

Sheesh.  Maybe I'd better stop filing bug reports, if when I do so it
encourages you to remove some other longstanding Emacs feature I use.