[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties
From: |
david |
Subject: |
bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:53:35 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Tuxedo/0.1 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:36:13 +0200, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
wrote:
>> I have run your frame-position code a few times; I have not had time to
>> do
> > anything else.
>
> I suppose you did not (or were not able to) apply my patch so
>
> (setq x-gtk-use-window-move t)
>
> had not effect on the outcome of your runs. Right?
That is correct; I want to try your change; I hope to get to it soon.
>
> > I am unable to do anything similar for 23.2 because
> > function frame-position does not exist in 23.2.
>
> I forgot. Instead of
>
> (pos (frame-position frame))
> (left (car pos))
> (top (cdr pos))
>
> use
>
> (left (frame-parameter frame 'left))
> (top (frame-parameter frame 'top))
>
> for Emacs 23.
I did not think that this would be important. I attach a run for 23.2
this time. FYI, it turns out that the code must be
(id (eval (frame-parameter... in order to handle parameters such as (+
-9)
>
> > Mostly, but not always, the 9-C (fun) frames are consistently in
their
> > correct corner. This is true for the 1-4 (arg) frames as well; I do
not
> > have any record of a deviation, so arg frames may be perfect. The
5-8
> > (par) frames are the deviants, which seem to go the the Left Top
corner.
>
> Your results for 25.1 are better than mine. Here only the "arg" runs
> position correctly. The "fun" and "par" frames all end up in the top
> left corner. So if you do want to continue working with an unpatched
> Emacs 25.1 and want more or less correct positioning you will have to
> use the "arg" notation. Otherwise you will have to either patch your
> 25.1 or switch to the current development version.
>
> (
> (arg
> ...
> (name . "4 Right Bottom")
> (p-left . -40)
> (p-top . -40)
> (left . 1181)
> (top . 694)
> (width . 816)
> (height . 400)
> (r-left . -51)
> (r-top . -58))
>
> It might be interesting to see where these differences in the "arg" case
> come from - 11 pixels horizontally and 18 pixels vertically. What does
>
> M-: (frame-geometry)
>
> in that frame return?
See Run 5 attached.
>
> Thanks, martin
other-output-5
Description: Text document
other-output-6-23.2
Description: Text document
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, (continued)
- Message not available
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/04
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, david, 2017/03/06
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/07
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, david, 2017/03/08
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/09
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, david, 2017/03/10
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/11
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/23
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, david, 2017/03/28
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/29
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties,
david <=
- bug#25943: 21.5 Frame Display Difficulties, martin rudalics, 2017/03/30