[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:38:27 +0200 |
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:48:53 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: 38181@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:52:59 +0100
> >
> > If the height of the mode-line is increased by inserting an image into
> > it, then that height is not taken into account in a buffer/window until
> > `redisplay' has been called at least once since the buffer was created.
>
> AFAIR, the mode line display is done lazily, because otherwise the
> mode line would flicker. When you change the face, that triggers a
> thorough redisplay, because any change in faces does that (it could
> mean many faces now have a different appearance). Adding an image to
> the mode line doesn't have that effect, which is why you need to force
> redisplay manually.
Btw, I was wrong above: enlarging the mode-line faces also causes a
similar problem. Try this slightly modified recipe:
(defun test-popup ()
(interactive)
(set-face-attribute 'mode-line nil :height 350)
(set-face-attribute 'mode-line-inactive nil :height 350)
(with-current-buffer (generate-new-buffer "*test*")
(save-excursion
(insert "one\ntwo\nthree\nfour\nfive"))
(let ((win (display-buffer (current-buffer)
'(display-buffer-in-side-window
(side . bottom)))))
(fit-window-to-buffer win))))
and you will see that the buffer *test* isn't shown in its entirety,
either.
I think fit-window-to-buffer relies on window's metrics (like the
number of lines in the text area) to be up to date, and that is only
true after a window was redisplayed once since changing the mode-line
height. Martin, is this correct?
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, (continued)
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/13
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/15
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Jonas Bernoulli, 2019/11/15
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/15
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Jonas Bernoulli, 2019/11/15
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Jonas Bernoulli, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Jonas Bernoulli, 2019/11/17
bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/16
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/17
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/17
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, martin rudalics, 2019/11/17
- bug#38181: Actual height of mode-line not taken into account, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/17