bug#51596: image-transform-resize has inconsistent semantics wrt scaling up/down

[Stefan Kangas]

tags 51596 + patch
thanks

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:
>
>> Right, and that's a valid use case of course.  I still find the
>> interface inconsistent, as the naming scheme suggests that these three
>> options should behave similarly.

I've attached a patch below which implements the behavior I propose.

> Yes.  I think that, basically, the fit to height/width commands are
> pretty useless -- nobody wants that, because it'll inevitably make some
> images impossible to view.
>
> The two cases that make sense are "scale down so I can see the images"
> and "both scale down and scale up, because I want to see as much detail
> as possible".

That's true, now that you mention it.  The first patch below therefore
obsoletes the old commands, mostly to free up the "s w" binding which
gives the new, and strictly better, behavior.

We could also leave them unobsoleted and still take over the key.  It
won't hurt anyone because, as you point out, the current command is only
different in the cases where its worse.

> Sure, or a "don't scale up more than 200%", perhaps.  That's less
> finicky, I think.

Yes, that's probably better.  For this part, see my second patch below,
which builds on the first one.

0001-New-command-image-transform-fit-to-window.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-New-user-option-image-auto-resize-max-scale-percent.patch
Description: Text Data