GNU bug report logs - #14326
24.3; Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font

Previous Next

Full log

Message #88 received at 14326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: rudalics <at> gmx.at, 14326 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, eenliu <at> gmail.com
Subject: RE: bug#14326: 24.3;
	Conflict of w32-send-sys-command and set-default-font
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 07:17:01 -0700

> > All of that just repeats the claim; it does not support it.
> 
> I wrote the answer to that many times, almost in every message I
> posted lately in this thread: BECAUSE THE FRAME IS MAXIMIZED.
> 
> A maximized frame should stay that way for as long as the user wants
> that.  The only way the user says she no longer wants a maximized
> frame is (a) by explicitly changing the frame dimensions, or (b) by
> changing the fullscreen frame parameter to something else.
> 
> Maximizing the frame is not just a quick way of changing its
> dimensions, it's something else.  It makes the frame _qualitatively_
> different.
> 
> Now, if you don't agree with that, we will have to disagree.  I've
> said everything I have to say on this matter.

OK, it's clear.  For you, "The only way the user says she no longer wants a
maximized frame" is to explicitly unmaximize OR to explicitly change the frame
dimensions.

Where we disagree is apparently in what it means to "explicitly" make such
changes.

Changing the frame dimensions is the normal, documented, always-has-been
behavior of `set-frame-font' with no non-nil optional arguments.  That's pretty
explicit: such a call _explicitly_ changes the frame dimensions, since that is
what `set-frame-font' is documented to do.

What makes `modify-frame-parameters' changing the frame dimensions different in
your eyes from `set-frame-font' changing the frame dimensions?  They are equally
explicit.

I suppose you could argue that though the intention to change the size is
explicit in the call to `set-frame-font', the new dimensions do not appear
separately and explicitly.  They are represented by the font size (which of
course _is_ explicit).

That's rather like saying that coordinates are explicit only if they are
cartesian and not polar.  But at least I grant you that there is some
(unimportant IMO) difference between the _representation_ of the
size-specifying.

Anyway, we apparently understand each other and our disagreement now, which is
better than misunderstanding.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.