tags 78621 notabug
close 78621

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:41 PM Ship Mints <shipmints@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:38 PM Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2025 11:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > I don't follow this argument.  string-pixel-width uses the display
>> > code, so it should return the exact same value in pixels as what the
>> > actual display produces when the same characters are shown on the
>> > screen.  So whatever rounding happens (which I don't think it does,
>> > since font glyphs have integer advance width), it happens the same in
>> > both cases and should yield the same values.  Or what am I missing?
>>
>> The short version is that we should pass the current buffer to
>> 'string-pixel-width' so that we can just use the display code to compute
>> the string's width with all the remappings applied, rather than having
>> the display code compute it without remappings and then trying to guess
>> what the remapping would do to the width.
>>
>> Here's a longer version if it helps:
>>
>> The problem is that 'text-scale-increase' modifies the text size by a
>> particular ratio; when zooming out by one step, that defaults to 1 /
>> text-scale-mode-step, or 5/6.
>>
>> My fixed-pitch font is 8 pixels wide at the default size, so zooming out
>> one step means the pixel width per char is 8 * 5/6 = 6.666. Since the
>> advance width is an integer, we round up to 7 pixels. The original code
>> works for fixed-pitch fonts since '(default-font-width)' returns 7 in
>> this case, so the original expression:
>>
>>    (ceiling (* (string-pixel-width str)
>>                (/ (float (default-font-width)) (frame-char-width))))
>>
>> is equivalent (only in this simple case) to:
>>
>>    (* (string-width str) (default-font-width))
>>
>> Hopefully that all makes sense.
>>
>> For variable-pitch fonts, this is more complex. Our zoom ratio is still
>> 5/6, but we apply that ratio per-character, rounding each time. For the
>> string "hi there", the pixel widths of each character are:
>>
>>    Scale   h  i  _  t  h  e  r  e   Total
>>        0   8  4  4  5  8  8  5  8      50
>>       -1   7  3  4  4  7  7  5  7      44
>>
>> Since the error introduced by rounding each character is a bit
>> different, we get a different result between the width from the display
>> engine compared to the approximation in the first expression above where
>> we round only once at the very end.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed.  No more estimation.  Just use the display engine directly.
>