GNU bug report logs -
#51821
29.0.50; Suggest add variable or frame parameter: line-height
Previous Next
Full log
Message #61 received at 51821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> From: "Feng Shu" <tumashu <at> 163.com>
>> Cc: 51821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:37:23 +0800
>>
>> I think user should set to (t . RATIO) instead in most case.
>>
>> Maybe line-height can be a alist ((face1 . RATIO) (face2 .RATIO)).
>>
>>
>> ‘(FACE . RATIO)’
>> If the height spec is a cons of the format shown, the numeric
>> height is RATIO times the height of face FACE. RATIO can be any
>> type of number, or ‘nil’ which means a ratio of 1. If FACE is ‘t’,
>> it refers to the current face.
>
> No, I don't think RATIO can solve the problem, because it will cause
> both the ASCII and the Chinese fonts to be enlarged, and you will
> again see the same problem.
>
> AFAIU, you explicitly want to have _different_ behavior with ASCII and
> Chinese fonts of the default face, and that cannot be handled on the
This is not my final purpose, I just want to mode/head/tab line and
minibuffer's height do not change depend on Chinese char exist or not.
The reason I care line-height is that it can control
mode/head/tab-line/minibuffer's height.
> face level, because on that level we cannot distinguish between the
> two fonts.
>
>> > So if we require all the lines to be at least line-height pixels,
>> > those smaller lines will also become higher, and that is not what's
>> > expected, I guess?
>>
>> If user set line-height to a INTEGER with a variable, I think it
>> is user expected.
>
> I don't think it's wise to provide features that trip naïve users and
> then tell them "you asked for it". It won't be appreciated, and we
> will have bug reports.
Sounds reasonable
--
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 208 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.