Subject: Re: bug#7296: display-pixel-height not enough

From: Lennart Borgman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:41:27 +0200

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Jan Djärv <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> Lennart Borgman skrev 2010-10-30 16.05:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Jan Djärv<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Lennart Borgman skrev 2010-10-30 11.25:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Jan Djärv<[email-masked]>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The bug does not include any explanation why the current situation is a
>>>>> problem or a use case that describes it.  So I don't know what this
>>>>> information is for.  If it is for making an Emacs frame as tall as it
>>>>> can
>>>>> be, that information is not it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Emacs frame can be partly hidden by the taskbar even when the
>>>> frame is the active w32 window if the height is set to the value
>>>> x-dsiplay-pixel-height (when for example the frame is aligned to the
>>>> top and the taskbar is at the bottom of the display), that is the
>>>> problem. Sorry if that was unclear.
>>>
>>> What package does this?
>>
>> Every function that tries to maximize just height will do it.
>
> I'd rather see that those functions let the window manager do the job, i.e.
> set fullscreen to fullheight.  I don't know if W32/Nextstep has something
> similar, but if they do, that is a better solution to implement.

Then please tell those that do the window managers this ;-)

Maybe I am not explaining this very well since you said this. What the
window manager on w32 does is giving the size of the total display and
the work area of the display (through some API:s). We are currently
using the total display size. What we should do instead is using the
work area size. (I don't know if the total display size actually is
useful at all on w32 since it is not needed to maximize a window on
w32.)

Can you please tell me what is unclear? (I of course expect similar
solutions on other platforms.)