Subject: bug#29597: 26.0.90; line-number-display-width returns incorrect width

From: Noam Postavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:23:18 -0500

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> From: Noam Postavsky <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:37:09 -0500
>> Cc: Paul Rankin <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>>
>> (line-number-display-width) => 2
>> (line-number-display-width t) => the equivalent in pixels
>
> Actually, equivalent to what?  If to 2 (not 4), then this value would
> be useless, I think.  And if it's equivalent to 4, then it should be
> (line-number-display-columns t), right?

Oh, yes, I was confused. Because packing so many conditions into the
function interface is confusing (I seem to recall Dmitry raised the
same point when you were introducing the function).

> I don't object to such trivial wrappers, although I'd raise a brow if
> I saw something like this in Emacs.  It sounds too trivial to have 2
> more symbols in the name-space.  But that's me.

Is the symbol space really a scarce resource?