Subject: bug#21415: 25.0.50; Emacs Trunk -- pixelwise width/height for x-create-frame

From: martin rudalics <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:45 +0200

> I just checked this against Emacs 24.5. In that version, new frames always
 > start at 0 x 0, no matter how high they are. In addition, both versions
 > seem to react to the `top' property -- in Emacs 24 the window is placed
 > relative to the top (as expected). In Emacs 25 the start position when the
 > parameter is missing or is zero places the bottom of the frame in the
 > middle-ish of the screen, and a positive value for `top' places it further
 > down on the screen.
 >
 > I would suggest that we try to find why Emacs 24 and 25 differs, so we can
 > revert back to the old behaviour.

Agreed.  Could you or Keith please do that?  No OS X around here.

 > A side topic: The documentation to `make-frame' seems a little bit vague.
 > It doesn't include `top' as an attribute, on the other hand doesn't say
 > that it accepts more properties than the ones listed.

We don't mention most of the parameters.  Funnily, ‘top’ is indirectly
referred to here:

      Note that on multi-monitor displays (*note Multiple Terminals::),
      the window manager might position the frame differently than
      specified by the positional parameters in ALIST (*note Position
      Parameters::).  For example, some window managers have a policy of
      displaying the frame on the monitor that contains the largest part
      of the window (a.k.a. the "dominating" monitor).

 > In addition, is the
 > limitation when it comes to `width' and `height' correct ("You cannot
 > specify either `width' or `height', you must specify neither or both.")? If
 > seems to work just fine when I supply only a `height' property.

I don't even understand where and how we were able to apply such a
restriction in the first place.  Anyway, we should rewrite both
doc-string and documentation.  As someone who always works with a single
main frame I have no practice with this function though.  So I'm
probably not the ideal choice for that task.

martin